"The National Guard Association of the United States and more than a dozen other fraternal military groups asked a
U.S. judge for permission to intervene in and oppose a lawsuit filed by President Barack Obama’s campaign
challenging the fairness of Ohio’s early voting rules." <snip>

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-ohio-military-voting/2012/08/03/id/447524

And yet, every election cycle it's the kool-aid drinkers on the Left that whine about election suppression because the Right thinks people should show valid i.d. to vote.

Regards,

Someone trying to score political points

Oh no. The Democrats are trying to stop a predominantly conservative demographic from voting! Its not like the Republicans would ever do such a thing! *looks at immigration reform*

Business as usual. Move along.

The campaign sued Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted on July 17, claiming the state’s two-tiered early voting process violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law.

State law allows families of armed forces members and civilians overseas to vote through the Monday before an election while early voting for all other Ohioans ends the preceding Friday. The campaign seeks a court order invalidating the statutes.

While I completely support making it easy for servicemembers overseas to vote, I'm not sure why other citizens of Ohio can't have the same voting period.

How about we just let everyone vote early instead?

Mannahnin wrote:

The campaign sued Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted on July 17, claiming the state’s two-tiered early voting process violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law.

State law allows families of armed forces members and civilians overseas to vote through the Monday before an election while early voting for all other Ohioans ends the preceding Friday. The campaign seeks a court order invalidating the statutes.

While I completely support making it easy for servicemembers overseas to vote, I'm not sure why other citizens of Ohio can't have the same voting period.

A voting period has to end sometime.
The citizens of Ohio have plenty of opportunity to get to the polls.
It's obscene to try to prevent service members, many in combat areas, from voting because they tend to vote predominately one way.

And of course, it's blatantly hypocritical of the Left to try to do so, after all of the whining they do about vote suppression. It proves their only real concern is winning at any cost.

G'day

I'll be waiting for the version of the story that doesn't cite Fox News as a source.

I assume there is more to it than the article makes it out to be - at least regarding the supposed reason for such a move. As ex-military myself, I'm also not quite sure why the military would need special privileges when there's already an early voting that everybody can do. How difficult is it, exactly, for active duty personnel to vote in the US? I honestly don't know - maybe Jihadin or someone else can explain.

Well its also a silly idea, cause a lot of young military members vote Democrat. The lower ranks are fairly well split between the parties. Its the officer corp that tends to be overwhelmingly conservative.

LordofHats wrote:*looks at immigration reform*
Business as usual. Move along.

What does immigration reform have to do with voter suppression?

If someone legally immigrates here and becomes a citizen, they have the right to vote.

If someone is in the country illegally, than naturally they have NO RIGHT TO VOTE.

End of story. Move along.

Cheers!

Phanatik wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

The campaign sued Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Secretary of State Jon Husted on July 17, claiming the state’s two-tiered early voting process violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection under the law.

State law allows families of armed forces members and civilians overseas to vote through the Monday before an election while early voting for all other Ohioans ends the preceding Friday. The campaign seeks a court order invalidating the statutes.

While I completely support making it easy for servicemembers overseas to vote, I'm not sure why other citizens of Ohio can't have the same voting period.

A voting period has to end sometime.
The citizens of Ohio have plenty of opportunity to get to the polls.
It's obscene to try to prevent service members, many in combat areas, from voting because they tend to vote predominately one way.

If, in your subjective opinion, the citizens of Ohio have plenty of opportunity to get to the polls, someone else could just as easily hold the opinion that the overseas voters have plenty of opportunity to cast their votes as well. Or think it's obscene to limit the voting rights of non-military voters.

Phanatik wrote:And of course, it's blatantly hypocritical of the Left to try to do so,

As you should know, but either can't understand or don't care to acknowledge, the Left is not a monolithic thing and is not trying to do this. A particular politician's campaign organization is.

Phanatik wrote:... after all of the whining they do about vote suppression. It proves their only real concern is winning at any cost.

The primary concern of a political campaign organization is winning the campaign. This shouldn't shock anyone.

Phanatik wrote:What does immigration reform have to do with voter suppression?

Republicans block immigration reform because in all likely hood legalized immigrants would vote Dem not Rep.

My point was that both parties regularly do things in an attempt to limit the rights of the opposing party's voting blocs. Blocking legalization of immigrants, limiting early voting, gerrymandering in general. It happens everyday. Nothing new here, or shocking.

Lynata wrote:I'll be waiting for the version of the story that doesn't cite Fox News as a source.

I assume there is more to it than the article makes it out to be - at least regarding the supposed reason for such a move. As ex-military myself, I'm also not quite sure why the military would need special privileges when there's already an early voting that everybody can do. How difficult is it, exactly, for active duty personnel to vote in the US? I honestly don't know - maybe Jihadin or someone else can explain.

I guess you'll be waiting for the kool-aid version then. Of course you can trust ANYTHING that comes out of huffpo/cnn/msnbc/the used-to-be-big 3.

If you were really ex-military, and you're in Ireland, are you a UK citizen? Why don't you KNOW how hard it is to vote while on active duty overseas?

But don't worry. You need not know anything about it to express your opinion.

Cheers,

Doesn't none of this even matter since who becomes president is decided by the electoral college?

Electoral college votes roughly correlate to the popular vote. Only in very close races, like the Bush Gore race, do we see the Electoral college declare a winner who is not the popular winner (result of winner takes all).

Mannahnin wrote:
As you should know, but either can't understand or don't care to acknowledge, the Left is not a monolithic thing and is not trying to do this. A particular politician's campaign organization is.
The primary concern of a political campaign organization is winning the campaign. This shouldn't shock anyone.

The report is that the obama campaign is behind this.
This flies in the face of the holier-than-thou attitude of the Left.

The left seems pretty much monolithic when every lefty news organization comes out with the same exact talking points as democrat politicians do on the same days. How do I get on THAT email list?

Cheers!

Phanatik wrote:I guess you'll be waiting for the kool-aid version then. Of course you can trust ANYTHING that comes out of huffpo/cnn/msnbc/the used-to-be-big 3.

Eh, still better than Fox imho.
The good thing about the big media outlets is that they rarely directly lie and falsify quotes. Usually it's just omitting stuff or presenting "evidence" from biased sources, so comparing various reports already goes a long way. So I do not think the article lies to the readers' faces, I'd just like to check if it omits anything that might be interesting.

Phanatik wrote:If you were really ex-military, and you're in Ireland, are you a UK citizen? Why don't you KNOW how hard it is to vote while on active duty overseas?

German Air Force. I just emigrated to Ireland about five years ago.
And German elections allow postal ballot, but since Germany isn't the US I have no idea how you guys are doing it.

Phanatik wrote:But don't worry. You need not know anything about it to express your opinion.

That's why I'm asking. Even as a European, I've seen enough spin - especially regarding this election - to know what sort of stuff should be scrutinised. And I'm missing the motif here, so either somebody was really being an idiot (especially for pulling this off that short before election), or there's a bit more to the story.

Their family members become part of the military community for the duration of their orders. I'm taking the civilians overseas as "contractors" for DOD. Think the focus is for the servicemember thats deployed can submit an absentee ballot ahead of schedule so it can be counted before "closing time" with everybody else. Mail coming in from the FoBs to Kandahar and Bagram are if I remember like 4th on the list of "Priority"

Mail coming out of Afghanistan comes out on whatever AF bird thats either designated as its primary mission to carry mail or "Space A" and fills whatever space on the aircraft avalible. From there is flown to Kuwait and repeats the process again

As for how mail is transported in aircraft its not just thrown in to fill space
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/463L-pallet.htm

Transport of mail from the outer FoBs are conducted by rotary wing. Either a Blackhawk or Chinook. Weight limitation and volume of cargo is a pain to figure

Blackhawk
11 seats/2300 lbs max

Chinook
56 seat/5300 lbs max

Rotary ring operations are planned 30-60 days out. We have whats called "Ring Routes" thats schedule every week. So one week might have the FoB seeing the "Ring" time a week and the following week twice. Mind you that one FoB is amongst 5-8 FoB's being visited by the same aircrafts on the ring route. So mail is backed up like 5-8 days. There are other rotary wing operations occuring to that might also hit the FoB on one of their stops so they can get mail out to. Mission dictates though so a good portions of rotary wing operations won't be able to handle mail service


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Holy crap this took off while I was thinking

Both major parties in the US mostly express themselves in the media using talking points.

It's part of the breakdown and polarization of our national dialogue, and part of why so many of us are Independents and refuse to join either party.

The Obama campaign has a specific purpose for existing, as does every campaign for every politician. It =/= The Left, even if the Left were some sort of monolithic thing, which it's not. The inability of lefties to maintain any kind of unified focus and message is one of the chief political failings and limitations of the Dems. It's kind of their thing.

Its a state perk for the family members of Ohio to vote early. IMMEDIATE FAMILY ONLY.

Hmm, seems like your mail takes a bit longer than that in the German forces, then - likely because your deployments tend to be a lot bigger, obviously, at least for warzone countries like Iraq, Afghanistan.

I could see that being an issue, then. Not sure how much an additional three days would change there, but I understand the criticism a bit better now. I'm just wary of military folks having official special privileges separating them from the people they serve (aside from parades to celebrate and/or honour the service, expressions of recognition and respect are usually best to remain at the discretion of individual civilians), so I paused at the "distinction" sentence in that article. I suppose that opinion is borne entirely out of the "citizen in uniform" culture that the German armed forces propagate, keeping the gap between civilians and soldiers as small as possible.

Anyhow, thanks for the explanation!

Mannahnin wrote:The inability of lefties to maintain any kind of unified focus and message is one of the chief political failings and limitations of the Dems. It's kind of their thing.

I think it's the Pandora's box of disparate special interest groups on the left that must give democrat politicians campaign nightmares.

The Right seems more focused - "bitter clingers" as expressed by Obama.

Best,

P.S. As ex-Navy, I take this issue very seriously, which is why I'm more phanatical about it.

I remember one of the major issue we are having with getting mail out. Gorilla boxes (cheap foot lockers) Everybody collects a huge amount of DVD, books, items from bazaars, extra boots we recieved plus additional expendable military clothing. So a good chunk of that mail is freaking footlockers.

Lynata I beleive your (germany) mail is mostly flown out of Bagram on german AF birds.

I understand Civilians overseas and such voting early, But why those that are here get to vot early? That makes little to no sense.

LordofHats wrote:Oh no. The Democrats are trying to stop a predominantly conservative demographic from voting! Its not like the Republicans would ever do such a thing! *looks at immigration reform*

Business as usual. Move along.

One group has the right to vote, the other does not.
You are as hyperbolic and misleading as the title of this thread.

The Gore campaign tried the same trick in his presidential bid and it blew up in his face, alienating a fair chunck of voters.

I remember that. (Gore) Talk about PO a bunch of people off

hotsauceman1 wrote:I understand Civilians overseas and such voting early, But why those that are here get to vot early? That makes little to no sense.

I suppose that could be the reason behind this move. Though I'd still say it was somewhat stupid and clearly a self-pwn. Apparently this move came as a reaction to another change made earlier by the Republican governor. Still, the reaction this would evoke was quite foreseeable, and I still don't see how a change of this law would have any effect on the actual election results. Apart from now driving people away from Obama's camp, obviously...

Might have been more clever to just extend it for everyone - equality without actually taking something away. It's just a three days difference, but as you can see people will make a big deal out of it because of it being perceived as an attack on something that's considered a principle.

Well, I think it would be a good idea to extend the voting period. Not everyone may be able to make it to the polls on polling day. Maybe they've got a long work shift or something.

Having, say, a three day voting period would allow for busy schedules to fit it in.


Personally, I think Voting should be required for you to have certain rights. If you don't vote, you don't deserve the protection granted by the establishment.

Phanatik wrote:
A voting period has to end sometime.
The citizens of Ohio have plenty of opportunity to get to the polls.
It's obscene to try to prevent service members, many in combat areas, from voting because they tend to vote predominately one way.

This doesn't prevent service members and civilians living abroad from voting, it forces them to vote within the same period as all other Ohio citizens, or hypothetically would were the Obama campaign to win the suit. I fail to see the issue as the relevant groups should know full well when the deadline for casting their ballots is.

Phanatik wrote:
And of course, it's blatantly hypocritical of the Left to try to do so, after all of the whining they do about vote suppression. It proves their only real concern is winning at any cost.

Wait, so it hypocritical for the left to engage in vote suppression while complaining that the right is engaging in vote suppression, but not for the right to complain about vote suppression while engaging in vote suppression?

That's an impressive degree of cognitive dissonance even before we consider the ridiculousness of claiming that a broad group can be hypocritical because certain members of it made certain statements.

Phanatik wrote:
It proves their only real concern is winning at any cost.

Welcome to politics, please enjoy your stay.

How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

“Members of the U.S. Armed Forces risk their lives to keep this nation safe and defend the fundamental constitutional right to vote,” the military groups said in in their request to intervene in the case.

You haven't done that since world war two. I very much doubt Joe Afghanni is threatening our vote. This article links the move to the Obama campaign in every other fething sentence but it doesn't say how they're actually involved. Does his campaign have gak to do with this, or should I take this pile of gak article about as seriously as I did the next political article it had about "Obamas secret second income"?

GT, google "voter purge". In Florida and Ohio (not coincidentally) in particular.

Voter fraud is also vanishingly rare. It's functionally a nonissue. The main reason the Rep party and its financial backers support voter ID laws is to make voting a little bit tougher for poor people, minorities, and college kids who are less likely to have the needed ID. It's a small percentage, but then, so are overseas voters. Every little bit helps.

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/misc/activ_uoc.php

If a county is late in mailing absentee ballots to soldiers, what can the Department of Justice do?

Under Section 105 of UOCAVA, the Attorney General is authorized to bring civil actions to enforce UOCAVA requirements. When states have failed to make sure that ballots are sent to qualified servicemembers in a timely manner, the Department of Justice has successfully obtained court orders and consent decrees. Many of these have required states to extend their deadlines for receiving these ballots and to count the late-mailed ballots, even when they arrived after Election Day. In some cases, the states were required to make permanent changes to their laws or procedures to make sure the problems are not repeated in future elections. Through these cases brought to enforce the federal law, the Department has ensured that qualified servicemembers were able to cast their ballots, and know that they were counted.

Ohio extended the deadline to the left instead of the right

Mannahnin wrote:GT, google "voter purge". In Florida and Ohio (not coincidentally) in particular.

So they're trying to remove people who legally can't vote from the list of voters. So what?

In some cases they are removing substantial numbers of legally eligible voters, "by mistake". Some of these folks don't find out that they've been purged from the rolls until they show up at the polls and find out they've been denied their right to vote. And these efforts are concentrated on districts which lean Dem.

Nobody said everyone involved was completely honest. At the very least this is a legitimate operation that some dishonest people have decided the use to swing things their way. Can't always be said of for the other side.

Are you arguing that one of the major parties is deliberately attempting to suppress the other's likely voters, but the other side is not doing the same?

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said everyone involved was completely honest. At the very least this is a legitimate operation that some dishonest people have decided the use to swing things their way. Can't always be said of for the other side.

The lawsuit in question is also a legitimate challenge, even if you don't agree with the premise legal procedure is being followed. The attempts by some conservatives to pass voter ID requirements are also legitimate for the same reason. The point I was trying make vis a vis Phanatik's statement is that is itself hypocritical consider the legitimate tactics employed by one side objectionable, while engaging in similar tactics in favor of the side you support; at least per the standard of hypocrisy he seemed to be using.

Phanatik wrote:I think it's the Pandora's box of disparate special interest groups on the left that must give democrat politicians campaign nightmares.

The Right seems has sold to 'special' interest groups as the left. Lobbying is an intrinsic part of democracies.

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said everyone involved was completely honest. At the very least this is a legitimate operation that some dishonest people have decided the use to swing things their way. Can't always be said of for the other side.

The lawsuit in question is also a legitimate challenge, even if you don't agree with the premise legal procedure is being followed. The attempts by some conservatives to pass voter ID requirements are also legitimate for the same reason. The point I was trying make vis a vis Phanatik's statement is that is itself hypocritical consider the legitimate tactics employed by one side objectionable, while engaging in similar tactics in favor of the side you support; at least per the standard of hypocrisy he seemed to be using.

Personally I find voter suppression pretty objectionable, and I wish no one engaged in it.

I'm still not seeing where this is Obama's fault, though I am seeing people who claim to love the military actively trying to undermine the military's fidelity to the Commander-in-Chief based on political party leanings.

Mannahnin wrote:
Personally I find voter suppression pretty objectionable, and I wish no one engaged in it.

I agree, but I also think that its inevitable (and in some cases arguably beneficial, for example denying the franchise to felons), and that so long as we're stopping short of "losing" ballots or outright intimidation it isn't all that horrible. I think that ID requirements and this particular lawsuit both fall well short of being offensive, though I would say that this suit is rather petty and that ID requirements are treated with more gravity than their likely effectiveness (or necessity) deserves.

Actions by the Obama campaign and Democrats, DeWine said, are contrary to American tradition and “quite shocking.”

He adds: “I’m just outraged by this. I can’t believe that the Obama campaign [and] the state Democratic party, are actually saying there’s no rational basis for a distinction between someone who is in the military voting, and somebody not in the military. Our whole history in this country, we’ve made a distinction between the two, recognizing the difficulties, and the unique situation that people in the military are in.”

I like how DeWine didn't mention that the exception also applies to civilians living abroad. It also isn't actually clear from the article if the exception applies to all Ohio citizens serving in the military, or just those serving abroad. Or even if it applies to the families of military members residing in the United States while the military member is deployed abroad.

I hear you (although personally I'm not sure I like felons permanently losing the right to vote; if they still had a say maybe that could help contribute to rehabilitation).

How about voter roll purges targeted at minority-heavy districts?

I thought we had problems when the queues were too long at the poll stations during our elections...
Also i don't know if it's because it's early morning but that article is kinda hard to interpret...
People in Ohio can vote for family members that are overseas or in active military service a few weeks beforehand? And they just want to change it to the regular schedule?
That doesn't seem so shockingly bad..

Mannahnin wrote:
How about voter roll purges targeted at minority-heavy districts?

I think its highly open to abuse, but that minority heavy districts are also the most likely places to feature large numbers of illegitimate voters due to the primary sources of illegal immigration being Latin America and the Caribbean.

So long as the people being told to provide proof of citizenship are informed promptly and repeatedly, and given sufficient time to procure and provide such proof, I see no issue. Of course I also suspect that what I consider prompt, repeated, and with sufficient time is likely much more generous to the subject of the inquiry than is actually being done.

I would say 3 notices over a month, 1 every 10 days, and 30 days from the last notice (by postmark, not receipt) is fair.

dogma wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
How about voter roll purges targeted at minority-heavy districts?

I think its highly open to abuse, but that minority heavy districts are also the most likely places to feature large numbers of illegitimate voters due to the primary sources of illegal immigration being Latin America and the Caribbean.

So long as the people being told to provide proof of citizenship are informed promptly and repeatedly, and given sufficient time to procure and provide such proof, I see no issue. Of course I also suspect that what I consider prompt, repeated, and with sufficient time is likely much more generous to the subject of the inquiry than is actually being done.

I would say 3 notices over a month, 1 every 10 days, and 30 days from the last notice (by postmark, not receipt) is fair.

I just got here mate, I dont usually bother with Phanatiks posts, I just presume it is claptrap out of hand and this one reeks of nonsense.

Is it worth me going back to page 1 or what?

Jihadin wrote:I remember that. (Gore) Talk about PO a bunch of people off

I had family in the military when Gore tried to disallow the military votes from overseas, which were 2 to 1 against him. He lost a lot of supporters and pissed off a really good chunk of the military. I'm thinking if Obama doesn't learn from history he might burn himself really well.

mattyrm wrote:
I just got here mate, I dont usually bother with Phanatiks posts, I just presume it is claptrap out of hand and this one reeks of nonsense.

Is it worth me going back to page 1 or what?

Probably not, I wouldn't bother either except my job has me in front of a computer 10-12 hours a day, so I need some distractions.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I just got here mate, I dont usually bother with Phanatiks posts, I just presume it is claptrap out of hand and this one reeks of nonsense.

Is it worth me going back to page 1 or what?

Probably not, I wouldn't bother either except my job has me in front of a computer 10-12 hours a day, so I need some distractions.

TV tropes, for when you want to lose five hours

youbedead wrote:
TV tropes, for when you want to lose five hours

I've exhausted that website. Probably put about 100 hours into it over the last year. What really needs to happen is more good PS3 games coming out.

dogma wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
I just got here mate, I dont usually bother with Phanatiks posts, I just presume it is claptrap out of hand and this one reeks of nonsense.

Is it worth me going back to page 1 or what?

Probably not, I wouldn't bother either except my job has me in front of a computer 10-12 hours a day, so I need some distractions.

You have to feel like a zombie after a day like that. My hat is off to you for stamina.

Relapse wrote:
You have to feel like a zombie after a day like that. My hat is off to you for stamina.

Well, a lot of it is dead time (I have to compile, and correct, from a team of 4), and I have 4 computers. Unless the data set is huge and I need to use my main (this one is at 200k entries) I can play games on it. Otherwise I go to the gym, or go running, but I did both earlier today so my body is shot till tomorrow.

Keep in mind, 10-12 hours days are what I get 5-6 days a week.

dogma wrote:

Keep in mind, 10-12 hours days are what I get 5-6 days a week.

Shriek!

I noticed you guys work longer hours in the states, Its probably the number one reason we fethed off back over here!

Although, I haven't got as much money, so swings and roundabouts I suppose.

purplefood wrote:People in Ohio can vote for family members that are overseas or in active military service a few weeks beforehand? And they just want to change it to the regular schedule?
That doesn't seem so shockingly bad..

From what I understood (I could be wrong), everybody in Ohio can vote a few weeks beforehand. It's just that this pre-election voting period ends on a Friday for civilians, and on a Monday for military folks, meaning they have an additional three days to do so. Which has been proposed to be changed so that everybody only has until that Friday, because those additional three days are apparently a big deal and unequal treatment.

Lynata wrote:

purplefood wrote:People in Ohio can vote for family members that are overseas or in active military service a few weeks beforehand? And they just want to change it to the regular schedule?
That doesn't seem so shockingly bad..

From what I understood (I could be wrong), everybody in Ohio can vote a few weeks beforehand. It's just that this pre-election voting period ends on a Friday for civilians, and on a Monday for military folks, meaning they have an additional three days to do so. Which has been proposed to be changed so that everybody only has until that Friday, because those additional three days are apparently a big deal and unequal treatment.

This is so trivial it's not even worth this thread...
3 days? If they took it away who cares? If they leave it who cares?
It's only 3 days...

mattyrm wrote:
Shriek!

I noticed you guys work longer hours in the states, Its probably the number one reason we fethed off back over here!

Although, I haven't got as much money, so swings and roundabouts I suppose.

Well, both my real jobs are telecommute, so its all from my apartment aside from a couple monthly exceptions. I generally go from bed to home office most days, and then reverse the trend when my eyes start burning. You'll see me post at like 5-6 A.M. CST for this reason.

Though it should be emphasized that I work so long because I have 2.5 jobs, and have always been a night person. Most Americans don't, and can't, do that.

Mannahnin wrote:

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said everyone involved was completely honest. At the very least this is a legitimate operation that some dishonest people have decided the use to swing things their way. Can't always be said of for the other side.

The lawsuit in question is also a legitimate challenge, even if you don't agree with the premise legal procedure is being followed. The attempts by some conservatives to pass voter ID requirements are also legitimate for the same reason. The point I was trying make vis a vis Phanatik's statement is that is itself hypocritical consider the legitimate tactics employed by one side objectionable, while engaging in similar tactics in favor of the side you support; at least per the standard of hypocrisy he seemed to be using.

Personally I find voter suppression pretty objectionable, and I wish no one engaged in it.

Same. Texas and many other states engage in it in a more subtle form via gerrymandering, and I really wish we could get rid of gerrymandering and instead have electorates divided up amongst statistical, non-partisan grounds.

mattyrm wrote: I just got here mate, I dont usually bother with Phanatiks posts, I just presume it is claptrap out of hand and this one reeks of nonsense.

If you don't read my stuff, I'll just die!

Actually, I was surprised to read your post. I thought I already had you on ignore.

Ciao babe.

Phanatik wrote:
Ciao babe.

feth me, I didn't know Danny Zuko used dakkadakka!

I like how the deliberately confrontational person ignores all other confrontational people.

There's a word for that.

Decidedly and unfortunately not on fire? Okay that isn't a single word but still.

Melissia wrote:Decidedly and unfortunately not on fire? Okay that isn't a single word but still.

It is if you hyphenate it...

I'm not confrontational I'm a social butterfly.

Anyway, Im off to watch York v Boro... you NEED to be drunk to enjoy that!

AustonT wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Oh no. The Democrats are trying to stop a predominantly conservative demographic from voting! Its not like the Republicans would ever do such a thing! *looks at immigration reform*

Business as usual. Move along.

One group has the right to vote, the other does not.
You are as hyperbolic and misleading as the title of this thread.

Read the whole thread next time cause I totally clarified that one (which really shouldn't need clarification cause its kind of obvious).

Republicans block immigration reform because in all likely hood legalized immigrants would vote Dem not Rep.

Who has the right to vote no has no baring on a blanket statement that only says that both parties like to block each other from getting votes.

Melissia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

dogma wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Nobody said everyone involved was completely honest. At the very least this is a legitimate operation that some dishonest people have decided the use to swing things their way. Can't always be said of for the other side.

The lawsuit in question is also a legitimate challenge, even if you don't agree with the premise legal procedure is being followed. The attempts by some conservatives to pass voter ID requirements are also legitimate for the same reason. The point I was trying make vis a vis Phanatik's statement is that is itself hypocritical consider the legitimate tactics employed by one side objectionable, while engaging in similar tactics in favor of the side you support; at least per the standard of hypocrisy he seemed to be using.

Personally I find voter suppression pretty objectionable, and I wish no one engaged in it.

Same. Texas and many other states engage in it in a more subtle form via gerrymandering, and I really wish we could get rid of gerrymandering and instead have electorates divided up amongst statistical, non-partisan grounds.

Mel I have no idea what this picture is supposed to mean; should I?

dogma wrote:I like how the deliberately confrontational person ignores all other confrontational people.

There's a word for that.

you have my attention]

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Spoiler:

Mel I have no idea what this picture is supposed to mean; should I?

It one of the most ludicrous voting districts created in recent gerrymandering attempts. Afraid that hispanics would vote democrat, the Republican party attempted to gather as much of the hispanic population in one dictrict as they could so as to limit their effect on Texas government.

That long orange pink thing was ONE voting district?

It's technically two voting districts. Texas won some new districts because of growing population at the new census, remember? The orange one was newly created for the purpose of suppressing hispanic votes while the other ones changed size for the same purpose.

Little early for Valentine Mel?...late?....

Uh... wait, what?

Showing us TX has a heart? (redline district)

Awww, its so cute.

purplefood wrote:This is so trivial it's not even worth this thread...
3 days? If they took it away who cares? If they leave it who cares?
It's only 3 days...

Pretty much - it's a matter of "this isn't equal treatment! rabblerabblerabble" versus "the military deserves this! rabblerabblerabble"
Politics 101

I couldn't read more the first page.

Solution: Destroy both parties.

I am just tired if 2 year election periods. As soon as November is over we will already start talking about who will run in the mid-term elections in 2014, what the impact will be, rabble rabble rabble. It never fething ends.

Screw the primaries. Just make it a 3 month election period with instant runoff voting. Everybody gets to be on the ballot.

I'm not even allowed to vote in the primaries as an independent, why should my taxes pay for them.

From what i hear, its his campaign, and obama doesnt support
also D-USA i agree, sometimes i wish we where a benevolent dictatorship

hotsauceman1 wrote:also D-USA i agree, sometimes i wish we where a benevolent dictatorship

I don't think he was calling for a dictatorship, just doing away with primaries and making terms longer so that the deluge of campaigning can slow to a trickle.

Ahtman wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:also D-USA i agree, sometimes i wish we where a benevolent dictatorship

I don't think he was calling for a dictatorship, just doing away with primaries and making terms longer so that the deluge of campaigning can slow to a trickle.

I do support term limits.

Except for POTUS. I think POTUS should be one 6 year term. If Senators can serve for 6 then why not POTUS. Stops all that wishy washy stuff like telling Russia "I can do more in my 2nd term" because you constantly have to think about getting reelected. 6 years gives you more time to really prove that your plans are working (if they are going to work) and by not facing a 2nd term you don't have to worry about making decisions that are unpopular. I think that there are decisions that could be made as POTUS that would piss off everybody but that would also really benefit the country. But nobody wants to do them because "I won't get reelected". Sometimes you need tough love, and a single 6 year term might help in that.

This is going to get ugly

Grey Templar wrote:How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

The reason was that if immigration reform took place, those illegal immigrants would become legal immigrants, and possibly citizens. Who then would most likely vote against the people that didn't want them to be citizens (ie Republicans).

As far as ID goes, I'm opposed. "You're poor so you can't vote" went out with poll taxes.


Edit: On district shenanigans: the real reason they redistrict anything is to limit the number of a party in a district. Usually this is so that members of the other party can't even get on the ballot, such as Pennsylvania, which requires a certain number of members of your party in a district sign a petition for you to run. If there are not that many, well, too bad.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

The reason was that if immigration reform took place, those illegal immigrants would become legal immigrants, and possibly citizens. Who then would most likely vote against the people that didn't want them to be citizens (ie Republicans).

As far as ID goes, I'm opposed. "You're poor so you can't vote" went out with poll taxes.


Edit: On district shenanigans: the real reason they redistrict anything is to limit the number of a party in a district. Usually this is so that members of the other party can't even get on the ballot, such as Pennsylvania, which requires a certain number of members of your party in a district sign a petition for you to run. If there are not that many, well, too bad.

Rediclous, everyone can get ID of some kind. There are plenty of free IDs out there, and those that arn't are very cheap.

The idea that this is a poll tax is silly. Its requiring you to provide something you really should already have.

Grey Templar wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:How is the Right suppressing the Voters?

Immigrants can't vote unless they become citizens, at which point they arn't Immigrants anymore. and Illegal Immigrants can't ever become Citizens(and should never be allowed to do so)

And demanding ID at the polls is simply a defense against Vote fraud.

The reason was that if immigration reform took place, those illegal immigrants would become legal immigrants, and possibly citizens. Who then would most likely vote against the people that didn't want them to be citizens (ie Republicans).

As far as ID goes, I'm opposed. "You're poor so you can't vote" went out with poll taxes.


Edit: On district shenanigans: the real reason they redistrict anything is to limit the number of a party in a district. Usually this is so that members of the other party can't even get on the ballot, such as Pennsylvania, which requires a certain number of members of your party in a district sign a petition for you to run. If there are not that many, well, too bad.

Rediclous, everyone can get ID of some kind. There are plenty of free IDs out there, and those that arn't are very cheap.

The idea that this is a poll tax is silly. Its requiring you to provide something you really should already have.

To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

AustonT wrote:To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

The problem is not just that they cost, but that you have to be able to get to where they are issued. While I'm sure that someone will claim everyone can get a ride to wherever, whenver, the truth is very different in poor rural areas.

BaronIveagh wrote:

AustonT wrote:To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

The problem is not just that they cost, but that you have to be able to get to where they are issued. While I'm sure that someone will claim everyone can get a ride to wherever, whenver, the truth is very different in poor rural areas.

Some states do have free IDs. Fraz has pointed out that TX is apparently one.

Of course, when it is pointed out to supporters of voter ID laws that this is a cost that must then be borne by the taxpayers, they somehow don't object to that. Apparently because they are more terrified of a miniscule number of fraudulent voters (of the wrong color or social class) than they are opposed to higher taxes.

BaronIveagh wrote:

AustonT wrote:To my knowledge there are no free state issued IDs, but they don't cost much either.

The problem is not just that they cost, but that you have to be able to get to where they are issued. While I'm sure that someone will claim everyone can get a ride to wherever, whenver, the truth is very different in poor rural areas.

Poppycock.

Not at all. A number of states do have free IDs, but you're still putting an additional hurdle/barrier in front of legitmate voters' ability to exercise their right to vote.

AustonT wrote:
Poppycock.

Auston, if you're willing to stop by and give me a ride to the nearest location that currently issues one, I'll change my mind. It's only 150 miles from here.

Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

d-usa wrote:Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

How pray tell do soldiers whose state of residence is OK vote?

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

How pray tell do soldiers whose state of residence is OK vote?

Soldiers have ID.

Grey Templar wrote:

AustonT wrote:

d-usa wrote:Oklahoma is now requiring ID. We never had a single case of voter fraud at the polls, but now we have it.

Personally I think 50 cases of fraud would be less of a tragedy than even one person being denied to vote.

Poor person who cannot get a day off from work, or the required proof to get one, or a ride, or the money. People. Luke care less.

Soldier doesn't get to vote, get the pitchforks and torches.

Go figure.

How pray tell do soldiers whose state of residence is OK vote?

Soldiers have ID.

Which does them feth all good from Georgia.

I'm afraid I don't understand. I believe a military ID is valid everywhere.

Its a CAC card to be exact. I think its more towards the absentee ballets of soldiers oversea's. Giving them three more days of getting the ballots in before the deadline since getting mail out from countries takes longer.

Grey Templar wrote:I'm afraid I don't understand. I believe a military ID is valid everywhere.

You don't pay taxes or vote in the state you are IN; you do both in the state you are FROM. So if OK has a voter ID requirement; how do soldiers FROM OK but IN another state vote.
It's absentee ballot, it's always been and will always be absentee ballot. It's a rhetorical point that even once voter ID laws are in place there are exceptions. Rural voters largely vote by mail as well.

Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Easy. APO addresses. Also get the absentee ballot from a disignated NCO or Officer within the unit.

The lawsuit the Obama campaign group going with is

Obama campaign officials said the suit doesn’t attempt to restrict the voting rights of military members. The officials said they filed the suit to try to even the playing field for all Ohio voters by allowing early voting up until Monday for everyone, including members of the military, because they believe a two-tiered, early-voting process is unfair.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/05/axelrod-defends-suit-on-ohio-military-voting-law-calls-romney-stance-hameful/#ixzz22iXKL900

What has me curious now since this went legal and still continue past election. DO the votes still counts

AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Well I think its silly to use the Absentee system if you are perfectly capable of going to the actual polling place yourself. It's real purpose is to allow service members and travelers to vote. It shouldn't be something you do continiously.

Grey Templar wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Well I think its silly to use the Absentee system if you are perfectly capable of going to the actual polling place yourself. It's real purpose is to allow service members and travelers to vote. It shouldn't be something you do continiously.

Or if you live a significant distance from the polls or have a job, We really need to make polling day a national holiday.

That would be a nice idea. I doubt it would increase voter turn out much, shopping might, but it would at least give people no excuse not to have voted.

youbedead wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Ahhh.

I'm sure there is a procedure to verify Absentee votes. Maybe a SS number or using the Military itself as the verification source.

Voter ID laws are pretty much aimed at stopping absentee votes. That's why it's precieved as an attack on Dem voters; the elderly, the poor, and the working class often vote using the absentee ballot.

Well I think its silly to use the Absentee system if you are perfectly capable of going to the actual polling place yourself. It's real purpose is to allow service members and travelers to vote. It shouldn't be something you do continiously.

Or if you live a significant distance from the polls or have a job, We really need to make polling day a national holiday.

Or if you are elderly, in a nursing home, in the hospital, working a job that takes you far away from home (oil field workers as an example).

So it went from "Obama is attacking the military" to "we want the same rules for everybody". Who would have thought that there was more to the story.

Phanatik wrote:"The National Guard Association of the United States and more than a dozen other fraternal military groups asked a
U.S. judge for permission to intervene in and oppose a lawsuit filed by President Barack Obama’s campaign
challenging the fairness of Ohio’s early voting rules." <snip>

http://www.newsmax.com/US/obama-ohio-military-voting/2012/08/03/id/447524

And yet, every election cycle it's the kool-aid drinkers on the Left that whine about election suppression because the Right thinks people should show valid i.d. to vote.

Regards,

You and people like you are exactly the reason US politics is so utterly fethed up.

You read something like this and don't think for one second about the problems with political parties being charged with administering the rules of elections, you don't think for one second about Republican efforts to manipulate voting rules that are at least as overtly partisan as the effort above. Instead you just think this is another thing to yell at the left over, so you better post it to dakka straight away.

This unthinking partisan crap is exactly why both parties feel free to shamelessly stuff about with electoral processes.

So just fething stop it.

Grey Templar wrote:
Rediclous, everyone can get ID of some kind. There are plenty of free IDs out there, and those that arn't are very cheap.

The idea that this is a poll tax is silly. Its requiring you to provide something you really should already have.

Well, no, its requiring you to have one if you want to vote, which is placing a financial barrier in between people and the ability to exercise their rights. It isn't a poll tax, but it is a requirement that would place a barrier to voting in front of a group that is already disenfranchised by their economic status.

To draw a parallel, I imagine you aren't overly fond of the idea of needing to pay for a permit to own a handgun.

LordofHats wrote:Electoral college votes roughly correlate to the popular vote. Only in very close races, like the Bush Gore race, do we see the Electoral college declare a winner who is not the popular winner (result of winner takes all).

More to the point, exactly which politician a state's electoral college votes are given to is determined by the popular vote within that state*. Ohio is a swing state, in fact in this upcoming election it is the most likely state to be the tipping point between the two candidates. It could even be argued that one of the major reasons that Romney is an underdog is because he's behind in polling in Ohio, and without Ohio its really hard to figure out how he could win the election.

So yeah, whether soldiers have special rules or have their early voting kept to the same rules as everyone else matter a hell of a lot.



*Though states each determine exactly how they do that... whether its winner takes all, or proportionate or some weirdo variant of that.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Spoiler:

Mel I have no idea what this picture is supposed to mean; should I?

It one of the most ludicrous voting districts created in recent gerrymandering attempts. Afraid that hispanics would vote democrat, the Republican party attempted to gather as much of the hispanic population in one dictrict as they could so as to limit their effect on Texas government.

Its awesome. The prick they jerrymandered is a multiterm prick.

Grey Templar wrote:That would be a nice idea. I doubt it would increase voter turn out much, shopping might, but it would at least give people no excuse not to have voted.

Actually, making election day a national holiday opens up tons of options for GOTV operations. You could, for example, host events that required an "I voted" sticker in order to enter. This type of thing would probably favor Democrats at first, as most GOTV operations are liberal, but the GOP would catch on eventually*.



*And should start catching on anyway.

dogma wrote:I agree, but I also think that its inevitable (and in some cases arguably beneficial, for example denying the franchise to felons), and that so long as we're stopping short of "losing" ballots or outright intimidation it isn't all that horrible. I think that ID requirements and this particular lawsuit both fall well short of being offensive, though I would say that this suit is rather petty and that ID requirements are treated with more gravity than their likely effectiveness (or necessity) deserves.

I agree that in most cases the actions undertaken fall well short of being offensive, particularly in this case where there is a genuine question over whether the military needs special rules for voting due to their particular circumstances. I honestly don't know if they need a special exemption, and think the best way to resolve the issue would be for it to be heard by a court.

The issue, really, is the openly partisan nature of each of the electoral process disputes, and the way in which so many people on both sides meekly accept their side's manipulative position, and even attempt to defend it. That's offensive. Partisan politics has gotten to the point that many people don't even blink to consider if democratic principles should be more important than every little thing it takes to win.

Mail coming in from overseas take longer to arrive to the state polling center. Three day extended period was to cover down on the absentee ballots coming from troops in the middle east. SO all votes can be counted within the state

sebster wrote: Partisan politics has gotten to the point that many people don't even blink to consider if democratic principles should be more important than every little thing it takes to win.

I agree, and I say that as someone who probably would need to find another job if politics were less partisan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Mail coming in from overseas take longer to arrive to the state polling center. Three day extended period was to cover down on the absentee ballots coming from troops in the middle east. SO all votes can be counted within the state

Then mail them earlier, or go off the postmark.

Relapse wrote:I had family in the military when Gore tried to disallow the military votes from overseas, which were 2 to 1 against him. He lost a lot of supporters and pissed off a really good chunk of the military. I'm thinking if Obama doesn't learn from history he might burn himself really well.

That's very much the FOX news version of the story. The dispute was over overseas ballots that were received late and lacked postmarks or any symbol to show they were submitted within the allowed time frame (its entirely possible they were filled out on or after the date of the election, once it became obvious the election was going to be very close). This was in line with processes ordered by the Republican Secretary of State, Kathryn Harris. It is a perfectly reasonable request for a politician to require that only legal votes are accepted.

Now, obviously, the motivation for denying these votes was because they were predominantly Republican, no arguing about that. But the story you give above makes it sound like Gore was attempting to reject all military, instead of just those that came in late, and that lacked any evidence they were cast before the date of the election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:This is so trivial it's not even worth this thread...
3 days? If they took it away who cares? If they leave it who cares?
It's only 3 days...

Well, I think it's an interesting enough issue, but then I'm a bit of a nerd who likes reading about stuff like this. But as the scathing attack Phanatik pretended it was? Nah, it sure as hell isn't that.

argh

Melissia wrote:Same. Texas and many other states engage in it in a more subtle form via gerrymandering, and I really wish we could get rid of gerrymandering and instead have electorates divided up amongst statistical, non-partisan grounds.

I'm not sure I'd ever use the word 'subtle' in a sentence describing Texas' gerrymandering practices.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:If you don't read my stuff, I'll just die!

Actually, I was surprised to read your post. I thought I already had you on ignore.

Ciao babe.

Phanatik's approach to dakka is that he wants to shout at all the filthy lefties, and lots of people he likes to pretend are lefties, but doesn't want to hear any of them respond. This is exactly as productive as you'd assume.

This is going to back fire on Obama. Even hough they want everyone to have the same right in Ohio the military card been played.

Jihadin wrote:This is going to back fire on Obama. Even hough they want everyone to have the same right in Ohio the military card been played.

Is the military vote more important than all the other votes, or is there some other special reason why everybody can't have the same deadline?

Is the military vote more important than all the other votes, or is there some other special reason why everybody can't have the same deadline?

Can a soldier vote on the same day as everybody else in Ohio while in Afghanistan?

d-usa wrote:
Is the military vote more important than all the other votes...

Depends on the election. It was what gave Lincoln a second term...

And I agree that Military votes need more time then regular ones. Why? Because a tin can a klick under the ice might not make it back in time to mail everything.

BaronIveagh wrote:
And I agree that Military votes need more time then regular ones. Why? Because a tin can a klick under the ice might not make it back in time to mail everything.

So? I'm not afforded special privileges if I go backpacking in Mongolia. And that submarine probably isn't going to surface in order to send off absentee ballots.

You'd think with today's tech, we could just vote on the net. Think how many more people would vote if they didn't have to leave the house. And you could still set up polling places with all the booths hooked into the net.

Simple and easy.

You could even allow voting to take place over a week instead of just one day to make sure everyone gets a chance to vote.

If you choose that time to go backpacking in Mongolia.....seriously? Mongolia? It doesn't apply to you because you choose to go. The deployed units does not have the freedom to choose to go.

Backpack in Northern Tahiland its much better


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So? I'm not afforded special privileges if I go backpacking in Mongolia. And that submarine probably isn't going to surface in order to send off absentee ballots.

Mission dictates.

Jihadin wrote:If you choose that time to go backpacking in Mongolia.....seriously? Mongolia? It doesn't apply to you because you choose to go. The deployed units does not have the freedom to choose to go.

Backpack in Northern Tahiland its much better

Who the hell goes to Thailand for the backpacking? (unless it's a backpack full of Thai stick that you have to take from the uplands down to the river and then off to New Guinea)

And, actually, the Flaming Cliffs in outer Mongolia are very nice. Just remember to keep your bribes paid.

Jihadin wrote:
Mission dictates.

Exactly.

Jihadin wrote:If you choose that time to go backpacking in Mongolia.....seriously? Mongolia? It doesn't apply to you because you choose to go. The deployed units does not have the freedom to choose to go.

You chose to join the military. We all choose to make commitments, and that can make exercising our rights difficult. I mean, you could just go AWOL and hitch a ride to your home state if you really want to vote.

You chose to join the military. We all choose to make commitments, and that can make exercising our rights difficult. I mean, you could just go AWOL and hitch a ride to your home state if you really want to vote.

We did have a soldier from another FoB go AWOL. Walking back to the US with a bag of chips and a bottle of water wearing his PT uniform.

Jihadin wrote:
We did have a soldier from another FoB go AWOL. Walking back to the US with a bag of chips and a bottle of water wearing his PT uniform.

The military is a job. Nobody drafted them, they choose that life. They get advance notice of elections, it's not like they are a surprise. They can request their absentee ballots just like everybody else, and they can send them in just like everybody else.

They can have the same deadline as everybody else.

If they can extend the deadline for them until Monday, then everybody else should have until Monday as well.

"The Military, fighting for democracy everywhere but in the USA."

Bad timing on Obama camp though with the election in Nov. This should have been pointed out like eight months ago by the DoJ.

d-usa wrote:
If they can extend the deadline for them until Monday, then everybody else should have until Monday as well.

I think that's the easiest solution.

But I still fail to understand how "if the military has until Monday, everybody should have until Monday" makes the Obama campaign a freedom/democracy/election hating monster?

d-usa wrote:But I still fail to understand how "if the military has until Monday, everybody should have until Monday" makes the Obama campaign a freedom/democracy/election hating monster?

Well, to be fair, that's really not what has happened. A suit was filed against the Ohio law, this might cause the law to be changed to increase the length of the period in which other Ohio citizens can vote, or it might decrease the same period for the military and those abroad (still not clear on how that works).

But, either way, the surrounding noise is just irrational hyperbole. Note that this hasn't been in the news at all, just on Dakka due to Phanatik (a well chosen name).

d-usa wrote:
"The Military, fighting for democracy everywhere but in the USA."

Beats the CIA: "Fighting for Totalitarian states with your tax dollars in wars that you will only hear about if we screwed up."

d-usa wrote:
"The Military, fighting for democracy everywhere but in the USA."

Do as we say not as we do or we will blow your gak up.

Good times.

dogma wrote:I agree, and I say that as someone who probably would need to find another job if politics were less partisan.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:This is going to back fire on Obama. Even hough they want everyone to have the same right in Ohio the military card been played.

Meh, whether the Obama campaign did or didn't do anything that even slightly disadvantaged a single person the army, there would still be dozens of stories floating around about mean he is to service personel. Complaining about how awful Democrats are to servicemen is an American military tradition.

I said it once and I'll say it again, Gore tried to negate overseas ballets from the military in his bid and ended up alienating a fair chunk of people, particularly in the military.
It'll be interesting to see if history repeats as far as opinions go.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/04/no_the_obama_campaign_isn_t_trying_to_take_the_vote_away_from_soldiers.html

Thread title is incorrect.

Relapse wrote:I said it once and I'll say it again, Gore tried to negate overseas ballets from the military in his bid and ended up alienating a fair chunk of people, particularly in the military.
It'll be interesting to see if history repeats as far as opinions go.

Say 47 million times if you want, it remains a basic mischaracterisation of what actually happened, and it's more than a little disappointing that you decided to basically say 'nope, I'm just gonna keep on believing whatever I want, even when it's not really very true'.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I said it once and I'll say it again, Gore tried to negate overseas ballets from the military in his bid and ended up alienating a fair chunk of people, particularly in the military.
It'll be interesting to see if history repeats as far as opinions go.

Say 47 million times if you want, it remains a basic mischaracterisation of what actually happened, and it's more than a little disappointing that you decided to basically say 'nope, I'm just gonna keep on believing whatever I want, even when it's not really very true'.

I had family in the military back when that happened. There were a lot of statements that went out between bases and units about Gore, and his campaign pissed off a lot of people at that point. There weren't more than a couple of people serving that I knew who would talk about Gore that didn't start out with a colorful adjective or two about him after this trick was pulled.

The military does like to defend its privileges, especially by pretending they deserve them. Soldiers are like welfare recipients in that way.

Relapse is right. If this plays out. How many here remember that. Or does everyone remember the "Chads" only

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
And I agree that Military votes need more time then regular ones. Why? Because a tin can a klick under the ice might not make it back in time to mail everything.

So? I'm not afforded special privileges if I go backpacking in Mongolia. And that submarine probably isn't going to surface in order to send off absentee ballots.

The President of the United States didn't order you to go there on pain of imprisonment.

The level of stupid on this thread is appalling, but expected.

Frazzled wrote:
The President of the United States didn't order you to go there on pain of imprisonment.

I'm still not clear on what's going on here. Is it only military, military families, and civilians living abroad that get extensions? Or do all military and military families get extensions, in addition to civilians living abroad?

If the latter, its nonsense, and potentially patronizing. If the former then its just stupid. You join the military or travel, you understand that you may not be able to vote, and if you really want to then you take the necessary steps to ensure that you can.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:
And I agree that Military votes need more time then regular ones. Why? Because a tin can a klick under the ice might not make it back in time to mail everything.

So? I'm not afforded special privileges if I go backpacking in Mongolia. And that submarine probably isn't going to surface in order to send off absentee ballots.

The President of the United States didn't order you to go there on pain of imprisonment.

The President of the United States didn't order anybody to join the military on pain of imprisonment.

Frazzled wrote:The level of stupid on this thread is appalling, but expected.

Like saying that Obama is trying to take away the military vote when nothing like that is actually happening?

The President (regardless of Party) has to be politically saavy by the very nature of the job and how one obtains it, and I'm supposed to believe that the commander-in-chief is going to purposefully, and publicly, disenfranchise service members in an election year right around the corner from said election? You'd have to wear your pants on your head to buy that narrative. Some political strategist just earned is fee, it would seem.

Relapse wrote:Gore tried to negate overseas ballets from the military

I know it's silly, but I had to chuckle.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The President of the United States didn't order you to go there on pain of imprisonment.

I'm still not clear on what's going on here. Is it only military, military families, and civilians living abroad that get extensions? Or do all military and military families get extensions, in addition to civilians living abroad?

If the latter, its nonsense, and potentially patronizing. If the former then its just stupid. You join the military or travel, you understand that you may not be able to vote, and if you really want to then you take the necessary steps to ensure that you can.

You don't give up the right to vote when you join the military. Comparing it to a vacation is obtuse and you know it. This whole thread is filled with ridiculosity from every direction. But you comparing a backpacking vacation to public service especially in a war is insulting.

AustonT wrote:You don't give up the right to vote when you join the military.

You also don't give it up when you go on vacation or take a job overseas. The military is entirely optional and one knows going in there will be some sacrifices made. No one has denied service members the right to vote, just that they aren't necessarily entitled to special privileges when it comes to voting. Of course many conflate joining the service being a laudable choice with joining the service being an divinely ordained one, and if people don't treat them as paragons of virtue, above and beyond mere citizens, then they aren't being treated with their due respect, because merely joining makes a person more pure, and without blemish. We have a military fetish, as it were. If one were so worried about voting in every election one shouldn't choose a job that requires mandatory overseas travel, of which the military isn't the only one.

Wait wait, requiring a driver's license is EVVVILLLL!!!! because it will disenfranchise...someone/somewhere/maybe, but not given extra time for soldiers in the field is just fine hunkey dory?

Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

Frazzled wrote:Wait wait, requiring a driver's license is EVVVILLLL!!!! because it will disenfranchise...someone/somewhere/maybe, but not given extra time for soldiers in the field is just fine hunkey dory?

Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

Wait Wait, requiring a piece of ID that can be hard to obtain for a variety of legitimate reasons even though there has been no case of in person voter fraud in my state is fine hunkey dory but requiring that everybody has the exact same amount of time to vote is EVVVILLLL?

Fixed that for you

Frazzled wrote:Wait wait, requiring a driver's license is EVVVILLLL!!!! because it will disenfranchise...someone/somewhere/maybe, but not given extra time for soldiers in the field is just fine hunkey dory?

Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

Yeah, pretty much this.

I think deep down people know it, too. They (we) just want to believe that there isn't a contradiction.

dogma wrote:You join the military or travel, you understand that you may not be able to vote, and if you really want to then you take the necessary steps to ensure that you can.

Just because it's the reverse of what they tell you at the recruiters office doesn't mean anything. The US Military has always had the right to cast their votes regardless of deployment, as long as they were eligible. Previous wars have allowed them a long as an additional 2 months to send in their ballots. Longer for the Navy.

Jihadin wrote:Relapse is right. If this plays out. How many here remember that. Or does everyone remember the "Chads" only

I still remember the news going over this as well, and Gore did not come off looking good over the whole situation.

BaronIveagh wrote: The US Military has always had the right to cast their votes regardless of deployment, as long as they were eligible. Previous wars have allowed them a long as an additional 2 months to send in their ballots. Longer for the Navy.

And under water for three months.

BaronIveagh wrote:

dogma wrote:You join the military or travel, you understand that you may not be able to vote, and if you really want to then you take the necessary steps to ensure that you can.

Just because it's the reverse of what they tell you at the recruiters office doesn't mean anything. The US Military has always had the right to cast their votes regardless of deployment, as long as they were eligible. Previous wars have allowed them a long as an additional 2 months to send in their ballots. Longer for the Navy.

Your response in no way addresses his statement. His statement in no way negates the right of soldiers to vote, or even implies that soldiers have no right to vote, only the recognition that when one takes a job that requires overseas travel that one may need to take extra steps to be able to vote.

Lynata wrote:

Relapse wrote:Gore tried to negate overseas ballets from the military

I know it's silly, but I had to chuckle.

Not as chuckle worthy as seeing a column of troops marching in Couru!

I blush at my spelling.

Is the absentee ballot sent from the state to deployed members? If so then I need to go back over my notes how mail works coming in

Just the same old tricks to whip up the base for election time.

Absentte ballot are mailed out 45 days prior to election day right?



edit
It seems that everyone before was allowed vote before state legislation changed it to just military only.

Obama is so anti military that his campaign even filed a brief in support of the one filed by the military.

I am just going to guess that it was a republican controlled legislature that changed the law that restricted who could vote early?

Yep seems that way. At first the measure was no early voting then it changed to just the military. Ohioans got 200k signature to bring it up again to change it. So far from what I understand its a mixture of three laws that eventually went into "just the military" but the other two laws were not removed. Its....confusing

Remedy like some said already. "Reset" back to all. Do anyone of us really want to mess around with votes not being counted coming from overseas.

Jihadin wrote:Yep seems that way. At first the measure was no early voting then it changed to just the military. Ohioans got 200k signature to bring it up again to change it. So far from what I understand its a mixture of three laws that eventually went into "just the military" but the other two laws were not removed. Its....confusing

Remedy like some said already. "Reset" back to all. Do anyone of us really want to mess around with votes not being counted coming from overseas.

Agreed.

Jihadin wrote:Yep seems that way. At first the measure was no early voting then it changed to just the military. Ohioans got 200k signature to bring it up again to change it. So far from what I understand its a mixture of three laws that eventually went into "just the military" but the other two laws were not removed. Its....confusing

Remedy like some said already. "Reset" back to all. Do anyone of us really want to mess around with votes not being counted coming from overseas.

Not to mention that the suit was an attempt to extend the voting period for everyone, instead of restricting it for military. So either someone misread legalize or they just flat out lied.

I'm going with the latter.

Lying to score political points.

Think the NGA and other veteran grp going to go with the time it takes for mail getting into country and to the recipeient which takes...quite a bit time. and takes quite a bit of time coming out. With the lawsuit in does the lawsuit block the votes if it kicked further down the road?

The lawsuit has nothing to do with absentee ballots.

Relapse wrote:I had family in the military back when that happened. There were a lot of statements that went out between bases and units about Gore, and his campaign pissed off a lot of people at that point. There weren't more than a couple of people serving that I knew who would talk about Gore that didn't start out with a colorful adjective or two about him after this trick was pulled.

I know what you were told. The point is that isn't much like what actually happened.

And the bigger point is even if Gore had done something different or the issue had never come up at all, there would have been other lies spread through the armed forces about what those horrible democrats did. Making up silly rumours about how mean Democrats are to the military is what the military does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Relapse is right. If this plays out. How many here remember that. Or does everyone remember the "Chads" only

I not only remembered, I remembered what actually happened. Which Relapse didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

That is true, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I still remember the news going over this as well, and Gore did not come off looking good over the whole situation.

Sure, because 'Gore denies military their votes' is much easier to proces than 'Gore requires votes received after election and without date stamp to be rejected as per Florida regulations because there is no way of knowing if those votes were cast after the election'.

I mean, the fact that I already explained this to you in this very thread and you still ignore it and run with the story you like to have in your head kind of proves that.

Jihadin wrote:Think the NGA and other veteran grp going to go with the time it takes for mail getting into country and to the recipeient which takes...quite a bit time. and takes quite a bit of time coming out. With the lawsuit in does the lawsuit block the votes if it kicked further down the road?

The lawsuit is not blocking any votes, it's extending the period for non military to be the same as military, like I said either some people are idiots or some people are liars. Though it's usually best to not attribute to malice what cab be attributed to stupidity

BaronIveagh wrote:
Just because it's the reverse of what they tell you at the recruiters office doesn't mean anything. The US Military has always had the right to cast their votes regardless of deployment, as long as they were eligible.

The right to cast does not mean the right to be counted.

AustonT wrote:
You don't give up the right to vote when you join the military. Comparing it to a vacation is obtuse and you know it.

We're not talking about rights, we're talking about, effectively, privileges. Service members abroad know it takes mail longer to reach the US. They're not being denied a right to vote, they're being extended a privilege that, honestly, I would find condescending; as if they couldn't figure out when their votes needed to be in.

But, as I said above, extend the same date to all.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:I had family in the military back when that happened. There were a lot of statements that went out between bases and units about Gore, and his campaign pissed off a lot of people at that point. There weren't more than a couple of people serving that I knew who would talk about Gore that didn't start out with a colorful adjective or two about him after this trick was pulled.

I know what you were told. The point is that isn't much like what actually happened.

And the bigger point is even if Gore had done something different or the issue had never come up at all, there would have been other lies spread through the armed forces about what those horrible democrats did. Making up silly rumours about how mean Democrats are to the military is what the military does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:Relapse is right. If this plays out. How many here remember that. Or does everyone remember the "Chads" only

I not only remembered, I remembered what actually happened. Which Relapse didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Meh hypocrisy on all sides including my own.

That is true, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I still remember the news going over this as well, and Gore did not come off looking good over the whole situation.

Sure, because 'Gore denies military their votes' is much easier to proces than 'Gore requires votes received after election and without date stamp to be rejected as per Florida regulations because there is no way of knowing if those votes were cast after the election'.

I mean, the fact that I already explained this to you in this very thread and you still ignore it and run with the story you like to have in your head kind of proves that.

I was just quoting history on how people felt and what the fallout was.

Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

d-usa wrote:Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

Actually, I'm fairly confident that it was Oprah. Common mistake, I'm sure.

Ouze wrote:

d-usa wrote:Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

Actually, I'm fairly confident that it was Oprah. Common mistake, I'm sure.

I think Oprah just says that when it comes to being fat.

Santorum used it for everything else...

Man, Santorum. Just think about that for a second. Nothing highlights just how broken and unworkable our political system has become quite so well as considering that for a while there, people floating the idea of Rick Santorum as president with a straight face.

To be fair, they pushed the "anybody but Romney" for a long time and even Herman Cain was a viable alternative in their minds for a long time.

And now they have to keep a straight face trying to pretend they like Romney.

d-usa wrote:To be fair, they pushed the "anybody but Romney" for a long time and even Herman Cain was a viable alternative in their minds for a long time.

And now they have to keep a straight face trying to pretend they like Romney.

I feel that HERMAN CAIN'S! name must be typed in all caps and with an exclamation point for emphasis, otherwise it might imply that he was a completely sane and rational person

Relapse wrote:I was just quoting history on how people felt and what the fallout was.

Fair enough, and I think that's a perception the Obama campaign would be very aware of. But that it's also worth keeping in mind that no matter what Democrats do or don't do to disaffect the military, there will be a lot of stories around about how mean the Democrats are, and lots of soldiers will line up to believe them.

I mean, do you remember the one about the Clintons getting servicemen to act as waiters. Total bs, but passed on for years.

And at the same time did you ever hear about McCain arguing to defund the GI Bill, because he was worried that having generous benefits on exit was leading to too many soldiers leaving the army. Well that one is actually true, but you don't see it repeated among soldiers... because, of course, McCain is a Republican.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:Wasn't it Santorum who tried to invoke "truthiness" and how what you feel is more important than what is actually true.

Well, it was Colbert originally, but it wouldn't surprise me if Santorum took it up in seriousness.

That guy kind of was like a walking parody of the religious right that people somehow took seriously.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Man, Santorum. Just think about that for a second. Nothing highlights just how broken and unworkable our political system has become quite so well as considering that for a while there, people floating the idea of Rick Santorum as president with a straight face.

I think it says a lot about how desperately people wanted to not vote for Romney.

And at the same time did you ever hear about McCain arguing to defund the GI Bill, because he was worried that having generous benefits on exit was leading to too many soldiers leaving the army. Well that one is actually true, but you don't see it repeated among soldiers... because, of course, McCain is a Republican.

80K for three years of service. Yep I vote that sucker down myself. That pissed off a lot of soldiers with time in the Army and joe smoe coming off the street getting 80K the in eds. It wasn't against McCain we were mad at.

edit
The new GI Bill was also loaded with "pork" and pet project funding in the bill. The "do over" was Post 9/11 GI Bill which everyone can enroll into regardless of time in service and can also be transfered to a family member

So, let me see if I have that right. McCain was against the bill because it had too much pork, which you agreed with. They then larded the bill up even more by adding transferability to it, which McCain then supported (He was against it before he was for it!), which presumably you also support.

He then didn't bother to show up to vote for it - the only other senator who didn't had recently had brain surgery.

So, of course you don't hold it against him because.... why, exactly?

People love the ability to transfer their VA benefits. You can put a kid through a reasonably priced college program on it and he/she will graduate with no loan debt.

I think this may be the first time I've heard the Post 9/11 GI referred to negatively.

Because when the bill pass it was in its "pure" form dealing strictly with VA education benefits for all service member.That was the other "beef" McCain had about the bill

As for McCain not being there to vote for it or going AWOL to vote for it why would that one action make me turn against him?

edit
WHen the bill first came about it favored those coming in. That I was against. When the final version came out I had no issue with it. I was not being negative about the final version Monster Rain. I was negative towards the initial version. Everyone in Afghanistan was glued on this topic in '08 and was really negative towards the intital version

Step 1: Attempt to disenfranchise voters that will likely vote against the Republican Party.

Step 2: Defend this by yelling about voter fraud.

Step 3: Ignore anyone that points out that voter fraud is almost nonexistent.

Step 4: Put your fingers into your hears and scream when someone points out the hypocrisy of the party of small government's attempt to use government to make it more difficult for a person to exercise their constitutional right to vote, despite there being no evidence for any of the proposed justifications for this attempt to disenfranchise.

Step 5: Really seriously ignore fellow Republicans who come out and admit that yes, this is being done in an attempt to depress African American voters.

Step 6: Manufacture a scandal wherein Obama's attempt to increase voting rights have now become an attempt to hurt the most beautiful, virginal, and sacred of all things: our glorious fighting men and women in the military.

Step 7: Get irritated and upset when called out on this stupidity and intellectual dishonesty.

Step 8: Never, ever say anything good about Mitt Romney because lol that guy is just the worst and everyone knows it.

Title fixed.

Personal insults from two people deleted. Knock it off.

It must be 1984.

Seriously?

Maybe the thread's original title was in Newspeak.

Phanatik wrote:It must be 1984.

You've never read the book, so how would you know?


The new title is more accurate to what's actually happening.

The original title was word for word the headline from a post I saw on my cousin's wife's Facebook from Reagan something or other .com. So that is how it was reported to sympathetic voters. 5 minutes of reading and I dismissed it for what it was: propaganda. That doesn't make the new title better, the thread was doing fine arguing about nothing with the first one.

Usually the mods don't like it when people post inflammatory lies in the post title.

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It must be 1984.

You've never read the book, so how would you know?

Your arrogance in declaring something you have no knowledge of is amazing.

And your reply is as valid as anything else you ever have to say.

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It must be 1984.

You've never read the book, so how would you know?

Your arrogance in declaring something you have no knowledge of is amazing.

I think I hear an echo...

Cause that's what I just said about you

But seriously, there's no parallels with 1984 here.

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It must be 1984.

You've never read the book, so how would you know?

Your arrogance in declaring something you have no knowledge of is amazing.

But seriously, there's no parallels with 1984 here.

Then perhaps you've never read the book, or failed to comprehend it.

I find it interesting that a left-leaning mod re-writes the title of a thread, not his own, to suit himself. I think the mods on this website have too much power with too little oversight.

I wrote the original title for a reason.

My teacher in school that had us read the book did so as a warning of what could happen. The left seems to think of it as a how-to book.

Regards,

Wait, what?

The title you put up was blatantly false. It was changed because maybe the mods, who are mostly petty enablers of the bourgeois class, wanted there to be the facade of some sort of reality in this thread.

And now you're talking about a book written by a man who was such a strong advocate of socialism that he fought and was wounded in a civil war? I'm utterly confused.

1984 is about a lot of things, but I don't think it's about "guy writing stupid post on the internet and gets it changed to something slightly less stupid because of Big Brother".

Phanatik wrote:I wrote the original title for a reason.

I'd like to know that reason, tbh.

I am at a loss for words.

There are some things which really just need to stand on their own. Or fail to stand on their own, like the statue of Ozymandias.

TheHammer wrote:Wait, what?

The title you put up was blatantly false. It was changed because maybe the mods, who are mostly petty enablers of the bourgeois class, wanted there to be the facade of some sort of reality in this thread.

And now you're talking about a book written by a man who was such a strong advocate of socialism that he fought and was wounded in a civil war? I'm utterly confused.

1984 is about a lot of things, but I don't think it's about "guy writing stupid post on the internet and gets it changed to something slightly less stupid because of Big Brother".

Never ever trust anyone who says "bourgeois."

I know! It's almost as if we acknowledge that there are economic classes that we may then have to do something about it!

Phanatik wrote:I find it interesting that a left-leaning mod re-writes the title of a thread, not his own, to suit himself. I think the mods on this website have too much power with too little oversight.

Indeed, you should definitely complain to the management and demand a refund, bro.

Phanatik wrote:I wrote the original title for a reason.

Oh, we know. We know.

On this very board no less!

Melissia wrote:
There are some things which really just need to stand on their own. Or fail to stand on their own, like the statue of Ozymandias.

Shelly might be too deep for him.

He has google.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, unless he wants to claim that Obama took google away from him.

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It must be 1984.

You've never read the book, so how would you know?

Your arrogance in declaring something you have no knowledge of is amazing.

But seriously, there's no parallels with 1984 here.

Then perhaps you've never read the book, or failed to comprehend it.

I find it interesting that a left-leaning mod re-writes the title of a thread, not his own, to suit himself. I think the mods on this website have too much power with too little oversight.

I wrote the original title for a reason.

My teacher in school that had us read the book did so as a warning of what could happen. The left seems to think of it as a how-to book.

Regards,

Did the mods remove words from you vocabulary, or tell you how to think, if not then I'm really not sure how this relates.

Phanatik wrote:
Then perhaps you've never read the book, or failed to comprehend it.

In this thread a person with a long ignore list complains about censorship.

Phanatik wrote:
I think the mods on this website have too much power with too little oversight.

Its a privately owned website. You respect the right of private enterprises to do as they please, within the law, do you not?

Phanatik wrote:
I wrote the original title for a reason.

Sure you did, but having a reason for doing something doesn't make the choice, or the reason, good.

Maybe the Mayans were right. Mellissia, dogma, and myself just all agreed on something.

Quick, someone talk about some random piece of military hardware to avert any further signs of the Apocalypse.

What do you guys think of the AMX 13/105?

It's a silly little tank, very, very french.

Melissia wrote:It's a silly little tank, very, very french.

It is a practical tank of moderate size, and only somewhat French. The levels of Frenchness could be so much more.

At least we can all agree that we hate the French right?

Ahtman wrote:The levels of Frenchness could be so much more.

It needs a mustache.

Ahtman wrote:It is a practical tank of moderate size, and only somewhat French. The levels of Frenchness could be so much more.

If there was ever any idea posted on Dakka Dakka which needs to be expanded upon, in my opinion, this is it.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:At least we can all agree that we hate the French right?

I love the French, especially when they assume I don't understand their language.

Vous êtes une bite. Only phrase you'll ever need.

vous mange petit chatons morte.

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:It is a practical tank of moderate size, and only somewhat French. The levels of Frenchness could be so much more.

If there was ever any idea posted on Dakka Dakka which needs to be expanded upon, in my opinion, this is it.

well it could fire baguettes, and it goes on strike when you start it up

Chatons sont difficiles.

Melissia wrote:He has google.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, unless he wants to claim that Obama took google away from him.

Obama took the Internet away from me.

Melissia wrote:It's a silly little tank, very, very french.

And six types of useless in WoT I suffered through it to the Lorriane.

Jihadin wrote:80K for three years of service. Yep I vote that sucker down myself.

80k in free education for someone who so wants to go to college that they'll spend at least 3 years in the military to get it. That's called putting money into your hardest working citizens... and that's what drives economic success.

Read a bit further Seb on my posts about the 80K

Phanatik wrote:My teacher in school that had us read the book did so as a warning of what could happen.

That your teacher thinks 1984 was about 'what could happen' is pretty stupid, and to be honest the fact that you haven't figured out in all the time since reading it that wasn't true probably isn't that far behind.

It's a book by a democratic socialist, intended as a direct attack on non-democratic socialism.

As much as I love the book, it needs to read for what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHammer wrote:I know! It's almost as if we acknowledge that there are economic classes that we may then have to do something about it!

As much as I recognise there are economic classes, I have to admit I get a little worried about anyone who thinks that automatically leads to a conclusion that we have to do something about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youbedead wrote:Did the mods remove words from you vocabulary, or tell you how to think, if not then I'm really not sure how this relates.

Perhaps the mods have demanded he always have dakka on in his room, and that he have a little webcam on top of the computer that must never be obstructed.

Perhaps the mods are currently engaging in scrub war with Eurasia, entirely to draw political attention away from changing the name of his thread title?

Break out the victory cigarrettes and coffee. This looks like it's going to be a long war.

Jihadin wrote:Read a bit further Seb on my posts about the 80K

Yeah, I read it, and I still don't see how it doesn't show an extreme bias in the way Democrat and Republican policies towards servicemen are treated.

I mean, here we have a thread where Democrats are saying 'extend the ability to vote in absentia to all Americans overseas' and we people claim that its about Democrats trying to reduce the rights of veterans to vote in absentia. And yet McCain votes against the GI Bill, and people quickly explain the technicalities of it, and why McCain's stance was actually quite reasonable.

I mean, if US veterans just heard the worst about every story and concluded that all politicians were out to get them well then they'd be like soldiers everywhere else in the world. Actually then they'd be like people everywhere else in the world. But when they don't just hear the worst about one side, but actively look to invent entire fictions about that side, and at the same time ignore anything negative from the other side, well then that's something else entirely, and it's something I wouldn't be entirely comfortable having in my country.

The mods have increased the chocolate ration!

Keep 'em coming, boys.

No cookies? Why no cookies? I like my cookies. My macadamien cookies...

AustonT wrote:
And six types of useless in WoT I suffered through it to the Lorriane.

.... World of Tanks does not have the AMX 13/105. And World of Tanks is not exactly accurate. Even on the paper project tanks like the Skoda T-25, which was designed around an auto-loading 75mm.

Monster Rain wrote:I think this may be the first time I've heard the Post 9/11 GI referred to negatively.

Yeah. The military became even more Republican than it already was and largely the bill is why a lot of career military don't dislike Bush as much as other people.

So, people are bitter about educational benefits for veterans because it made the military "more republican"?

That's the most deliciously sad thing I've heard all day.

I wouldn't say that but honestly I can't see how anyone can hate the post 9/11 GI Bill. It fixed several problems with previous programs, added some new ones, and allowed VA benefits to be transferred to immediate family. The VA put me through college on my dad's benefits which meant I didn't need a loan and my parents didn't have to struggle to pay for it themselves.

Even Bush can get something right

Monster Rain wrote:So, people are bitter about educational benefits for veterans because it made the military "more republican"?

That's the most deliciously sad thing I've heard all day.

I'm confused, because I have no idea what set of facts in this thread made you think that was an opinion anyone here holds. As I understand it, Sebster pointed out that the military is a deeply republican faction in this country, and then further illustrated that by pointing out when John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate in 2008, actually refused to support the bill until they larded it up further despite his party supporting it, and that military remembers in general rationalized it as being OK. Is that pretty much how it went down? That's how I read it, anyway.

When it firs came out it was only aimed at the individuals just joining the army. Also the bill was loaded with all kinds of pet projects and "pork" programs that had nothing to do with the Post 9/11 bill. So the bill was redone which included everybody that was in the military and those that are joining which we all agreed with. So when the Post 9/11 bill was passed it was a pure bill dealing just with Post 9/11 bill. McCain railed against the added crap in the initial bill and the extra goodies for us vets. So (I can't remember who submitted the bill) the individual added more to it to our benefit which passed the senate. Something about backdooring Bush to if I remember right.

Ouze wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:So, people are bitter about educational benefits for veterans because it made the military "more republican"?

That's the most deliciously sad thing I've heard all day.

I'm confused, because I have no idea what set of facts in this thread made you think that was an opinion anyone here holds.

Surely lordofhats' response to my post would be a reasonable qualifier for the statement you quoted.

The word "rationalized" in your post tips your hand a bit, though.

Monster Rain wrote:The word "rationalized" in your post tips your hand a bit, though.

Only if "my hand" is "summarizing something someone else said"?

sebster wrote:I mean, here we have a thread where Democrats are saying 'extend the ability to vote in absentia to all Americans overseas' and we people claim that its about Democrats trying to reduce the rights of veterans to vote in absentia. And yet McCain votes against the GI Bill, and people quickly explain the technicalities of it, and why McCain's stance was actually quite reasonable.

Rationalize is a good word for this anyway.

BaronIveagh wrote:

AustonT wrote:
And six types of useless in WoT I suffered through it to the Lorriane.

.... World of Tanks does not have the AMX 13/105. And World of Tanks is not exactly accurate. Even on the paper project tanks like the Skoda T-25, which was designed around an auto-loading 75mm.

Try again.

Quod erat demonstrandum I believe is the term.

Ouze wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The word "rationalized" in your post tips your hand a bit, though.

Only if "my hand" is "summarizing something someone else said"?

John McCain ended up voting for the finalized bill, though.

AustonT wrote:
Try again.

Spoiler:

You know that is the pre-release tech tree for the French, not what actually made it into the game.