Democrats no longer allowed to vote in Wisconsin

no, I meant to the post you wanted us to refer to.

no, I meant to the post you wanted us to refer to.

Ok, first let me state that each part has several sources so in the interest of saving space I will only post one source for each part.

The Czars: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26779.html

The Courts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fed...rack_Obama
Executive orders: http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01/cur...bamas.html
Domestic army: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123253/posts

Healthcare: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts

Cap and Trade: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009...ack_c.html
Stimulus: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/belt...-iraq-war#
Taxes: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-kl...has_r.html
Elections: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=186485

Card check: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...bor-bill/#
Guns: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15...36138.html
Again, there are many more sources for each of these items and even more to the point, there are many more items not even listed here. I hope this helped you.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-...sufficient

Good section that discusses massive issues with consequences resulting from passage of the bill:

Having a photo ID is no guarantee of voter eligibility.

Convicted felons have photo ID. Are we going to tell Grandma working at the polls to argue with suspected convicted felons and require these ladies to act as bouncers? That is insane and unreasonable. Grandma is probably going to resign her position.

People who have moved and have not yet updated their address have photo ID, but they are no longer qualified to vote at their old address. Theoretically, they could vote in two different places. At the same time. No one checks.

People who have recently changed their name (marriage, name change, etc) may have a difficult time quickly tracking down all the documentation required to registered to vote in their new name. Does anyone understand what a true inconvenience (and how time consuming) it is to gather up several different documents from several different places just to get your name changed on your driver's license? It can takes months. Ladies, if voting is important to you, make sure to schedule your wedding to avoid conflicting election dates. Do not get married in the six months prior to an election.

I don't want to miss an election just because I had to wait for my Arizona birth certificate to be processed and mailed to me, while I am waiting for my Nevada divorce papers to arrive in the mail so then I can get my new marriage license and my legal name change papers from Wisconsin and then try to endlessly explain to the DMV clerk how to piece it all together and if they succeed at doing that, then I have to wait for Madison to verify it and process it and wait about two weeks to get it in the mail. Wow, I'm too worn out to vote now!

The bottom line is, like I said, this is a "fix" for something that doesn't need fixing. Wisconsin has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country along with practically nonexistent voter fraud, yet you're trying to tell me this is a good thing. Again, in theory it seems reasonable, but when you start applying what the bill says to reality you discover situations such as those listed above, which lead to more fraud and, as the bolded section indicates, potential for downright illegal ballot stuffing.

EDIT: All this aside, I just read your post in response to Eos that is supposed to somehow substantiate your crackpot claims, but all it does is make radical, Tea Party-esque statements that are ridiculous at best, with no - and here's the kicker - substantial articles to back them up. Do you even know what "substantial" or "substantiate" means? In the context of how Eos and I are using it, it means POST YOUR SOURCES. Which you have consistently failed to do until your last two posts in this thread.

Bottom line is, all of this compounded with debates I've had with you in the past leads me to deduce you're most likely a crackpot Tea Party conspiracy theorist, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore. Throw whatever drivel you feel you must my way and I'll shrug it off and move forward.

Good section that discusses massive issues with consequences resulting from passage of the bill:

The bottom line is, like I said, this is a "fix" for something that doesn't need fixing. Wisconsin has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country along with practically nonexistent voter fraud, yet you're trying to tell me this is a good thing. Again, in theory it seems reasonable, but when you start applying what the bill says to reality you discover situations such as those listed above, which lead to more fraud and, as the bolded section indicates, potential for downright illegal ballot stuffing.

EDIT: All this aside, I just read your post in response to Eos that is supposed to somehow substantiate your crackpot claims, but all it does is make radical, Tea Party-esque statements that are ridiculous at best, with no - and here's the kicker - substantial articles to back them up. Do you even know what "substantial" or "substantiate" means? In the context of how Eos and I are using it, it means POST YOUR SOURCES. Which you have consistently failed to do until your last two posts in this thread.

Bottom line is, all of this compounded with debates I've had with you in the past leads me to deduce you're most likely a crackpot Tea Party conspiracy theorist, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore. Throw whatever drivel you feel you must my way and I'll shrug it off and move forward.

LMAO. You have obviously not read any of the links to include the Bill itself. Once again you prove to be misinformed about the facts and you use that misinformation to try and belittle anyone who does not share your narrow view of government and politics in general. Just for the record, I have no party affiliation. I do my research and decide based upon what I find who the lesser of the evils are before I vote for any candidate. Personally, I dont care what you say about me. I will just simply laugh and carry on. I get the information that needs to be uncovered out and yes, if anyone needs more sources I will be more than happy to provide them. As stated, CLEARLY I might add, each of my "claims" have multiple sources each of which are very insightful and each of them puts out more pieces to the puzzle. Please dont reply to my posts unless you fully read them and any links I provide. Give me that much courtesy as I have done the same for others including you. Thank you.

I sort of agree with the above, I haven't read through all the sources yet, but I've gotten up to healthcare. And frankly, I either don't get your point or I find your source to be complete crackpot nonsense.

First of all, the so called "Czars". It's a make believe term that media put on officials who are heads of and overlooking policy, similarly to how ministers work in parliamentary systems. The previous administration had 33 of them.

Regarding appointing judges. Every different administration had appointed supreme court judges that lean in the same direction of that administration. The judges were primarily right wing during the Bush administration.

Executive order: It's all part of the job. Bush made 290 of them. His father made 165.

Domestic army... I don't even want to say how absurd that "article" was. If anything it's an editorial in a some right wing web journal.

Healthcare: Same source gets the same criticism. Also to rebut your point you made in the other thread, your healthcare system is nearly non-existent. I don't see what there is to change in the first place.

Anyways, off to bed.

I sort of agree with the above, I haven't read through all the sources yet, but I've gotten up to healthcare. And frankly, I either don't get your point or I find your source to be complete crackpot nonsense.

First of all, the so called "Czars". It's a make believe term that media put on officials who are heads of and overlooking policy, similarly to how ministers work in parliamentary systems. The previous administration had 33 of them.

Regarding appointing judges. Every different administration had appointed supreme court judges that lean in the same direction of that administration. The judges were primarily right wing during the Bush administration.

Executive order: It's all part of the job. Bush made 290 of them. His father made 165.

Domestic army... I don't even want to say how absurd that "article" was. If anything it's an editorial in a some right wing web journal.

Healthcare: Same source gets the same criticism. Also to rebut your point you made in the other thread, your healthcare system is nearly non-existent. I don't see what there is to change in the first place.

Anyways, off to bed.

Ok, I can see where you might think that way. That said, if you really want to learn the truth in any giving circumstance, you have to do research. That means looking up multiple different sources and gathering the various pieces of the puzzle and then putting those pieces together. Basically what I am saying is investigate as if you were going to investigate a crime scene. That said, just looking at the one source I put up does not constitute the full picture.

As for the czars, the media did not in fact make up the term. If you look up the meaning of the word then you look at how these people got their position and who they answer to you can come to the conclusion that the word is appropriate. Here is a video clip of the senate talking about these czars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlEiu0bXRLQ Note that this is just one example, there are more.

The judges part, again this is also another example of not looking into the facts and doing enough investigating. Yes each administration has appionted judges, however Obama is the only one that I have been able to find that has end run the system to put people in that he wanted.

Executive orders, its not the number of orders that is disturbing to me but rather the orders themselves. If you read those orders you will find it quite disturbing too. There are far too many of them to list and you really have to look them up to find out.

Domestic army, I really did lol at your comment on this. Here is another example of non-investigation. I provide video proof this time, again this is only one example of many. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3CHKm9ZuY

Healthcare, anyone who has read the entire 1000+ page bill will find the problems with it that many who have been criticized have found. Anyone who has not read the bill is blind to what its purpose is. Here is one example of Obama doudle talking in reference to this bill. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bY92mcOdk
I realize that you have not gone any further on my other post and I hope that with the videos in this one that I dont need to continue to show more proof. The simple truth is that many people like to go through life with "blinders" on. I am not one of those people. I see things and if I have questions I investigate. I dont get mad and start yelling about it, I look into it and find out exactly what is going on. This way I can better prepare myself for the issues that will follow. This country is heading for some serious trouble in the near futur and I for one will not be caught off guard by it. I have this many times before and I will say it again. I would rather face the dangers than give up my freedoms. What that means is that I will not let the government tell me that something is for my own good but it comes with a price of loosing a "little" freedom. At any rate, I hope this helps you to see my point.