/But as we refer to the Voter ID issue, I say issue identification to all voters FOR FREE. Then make it a requirement to present that ID to vote (or whatever else a person may need ID for... buying liquor, showing to an officer when caught speeding, picking up your kid at school, getting free government surplus cheese and bread, etc.

It a state wants to issue a free special voter I.D. card then I see no problem but the card should only be used for voting. If people need identification for other purposes then they should go through the regular process for obtaining that I.D. I just think it would be appropriate to issue this special card at the time new voters register and implement a program for distribution to voters that are already registered.

I do not see the purpose of any single individual showing up to a location to vote as someone else. Plus you can obtain fake I.D. if you;re that desperate. In order for fake voters to make a difference, there has to be a significant number of them and not just one or two here and there.

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

Now you're making me laugh again. Who knows how many of those delegates actually knew what was going on? I think the bigger story was the fact that a change in the platform was even requested. I am inclined to agree with the "know it alls" and spin doctors who make the point that it is better for a candidate to try to reform the platform than to say that your party's platform is not representative of your platform.

Anyway the Republicans seem to have falsely designated themselves as the party of God not the Democrats who in all their liberal glory are bound to have a number of atheists among them. Oooh and they probably have people among them who aren't anti-Palestinian. What if they even have people of Palestinian descent in their party as well? Imagine that.

Since the pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution then it only seems fair that people have religious freedom. I don't get the whole separation of church and state inconsistencies but that is a whole other topic.

That whole voting three times debacle looked bad and there did not seem to be a two-thirds consensus so he might as well have pretended there was the first time around and saved himself the embarrassment but I doubt average Joe voter cares that much about Israel though he might be appalled that people weren't embracing having God all over their platform.

Maybe this is a big deal for Fox News and some Republicans who need something over which to make a big deal but I'm guessing the rest of what constitutes the media is busy ooooohing over Clinton, planning Hilary Clinton's run in 2016, and speculating over whether Joe Biden will say more crazy things and Barack Obama will deliver the "bestest" ever speech.

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

I think you're projecting. If you want to see deep divisions in a party on display, I refer you to the GOP's Ron Paul supporters. Or are we just going to ignore how the GOP has been trying to smack them down for the last year.

The Dems were wimps for caving on the God thing but that's how they are. Regardless, as of right now, Bill Clinton is the biggest story of both conventions.

That is election fraud, which is far more common that voter fraud. Voter ID couldn't have stopped that sort of fraud, because it was orchestrated by a campaign. If anything, election fraud is more of a problem. Florida 2000 proves that.

LOL! You would think that a Republican would know the difference considering that George and Jeb Bush with the assistance their allies committed election fraud in Florida 2000.

Edited September 6, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

Thoughts, anyone, on the God and Jersusalem debacle at the DNC yesterday?

An ideological fight on the floor of the convention, suggesting deep divisions within the Democratic party on the acceptance of religion and our ties to Israel, is easily the biggest story of both conventions this election year.

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

Well, the Assistant US Attorney called it "voter fraud" in her quote. But whatever we wish to call it, I'm sure we can all agree that it is wrong and shouldn't happen. If something is up, it should be investigated, regardless of which party or what individuals are responsible.

But as we refer to the Voter ID issue, I say issue identification to all voters FOR FREE. Then make it a requirement to present that ID to vote (or whatever else a person may need ID for... buying liquor, showing to an officer when caught speeding, picking up your kid at school, getting free government surplus cheese and bread, etc.

Redd, would you agree to Voter ID if we made the ID free?

The point is, the incident wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID and mainly involved politicians. When fraud happens in elections, it's mainly politicians doing it, not random voters.

ID is fine as long as it isn't used to try and hamper certain constituencies from voting.

I think it depends on your individual circumstances. I admit, I've never been unemployed a day in my life, so I can't truly understand what your'e going through, but I also think that corporations WILL start hiring no matter who wins. Theyv'e been waiting and waiting, and raking in profits from downsizing, but I don't think they are going to hang around in limbo for four MORE years, hoping to get tax breaks form Republicans. Everyone is bandying about the "Are you better off than four years ago", I can say I am WAY better off than four years ago, I had my second best year ever this year. Everyone SHOULD be afraid of healthcare, cause no matter which way you slice it, insurance companies are going to rake in billions on your pain and suffering, and they've bought off every politician in washington to do it. No politician has the balls to do what REALLY needs to be done, and get insurance companies completely OUT of health care altogether. Max, what field of work are you trying to get a job in, if you don't mind my asking?

Alphanguy, I'd like to get a job corporate accounting, but the relatively few job openings available either are for jobs that I am over or underqualified for. Of course, I wouldn't personally have a problem taking a job that I am overqualified for, but nobody hires such people for "lesser" jobs for fear that they will use that job as a temporary stepping stone. (During the last 18 months, I've applied to hundreds of accounting jobs that I either was under or overqualified for, and I know full well that I have no chance of getting those jobs, since I am not what they are looking for. The only reason why I even bother applying at all is because I'll lose my unemployment benefits if I don't.)

I'm hoping too that the economy gets better regardless of who wins the election, but most thought that the unemployment picture would not be so bad right now. (Thus, while I could be wrong, I have no reason to hope that things will be any better during a second Obama term.) Regardless, I sincerely appreciate your concern and I am glad of your good personal fortune. Somebody as smart, hard-working, and nice as you certainly deserves it.

He's not a one man show so while certain things can be attributed to his administration, the blame needs to be spread around to that do nothing Congress. If they weren't so busy working on obstacles they might have been able to accomplish something but their single minded plan to get rid of him involved placing the entire nation in economic trouble.

And how is his pursuit of the Presidency any different than Mitt Romney's pursuit? Am I supposed to believe that Mitt Romney just wants to be President because he loves this nation (where he doesn't even keep all his money) so much? He cares about the little people so much that he believes the poor can be ignored because I guess they can call "211" when they have problems as well. The worst part about Presidential elections is that they spend millions of dollars in pursuit of a job while claiming to care about people who could be helped by those millions--or in this election billion.

Of course, most everybody who runs for president has such a huge ego, to the point that such person is probably concerned with his own well-being above all else. But, Obama has failed to do an adequate job, so it is time to give somebody new a chance. Obama's own economic advisers projected that if is stimulus was passed (which it was), unemployment would currently be around 6 percent (and not over 8).

I know that the president alone cannot be held responsible for the economy. Obama gladly reminds us that his failures are the fault of Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But, he has had a Democratic Senate for his entire term, and a Democratic House for his first two years. He also refused to get a new chairman of the Federal Reserve when he had the chance, and instead re-appointed Ben Bernanke.

Whenever something goes right (like the auto bailout), the president has no problem taking all the credit. But all he does is blame others for the things which have gone wrong, which is absolutely cowardly. Personally, I think that blaming Mitch McConnell (the freaking MINORITY leader of the Senate) for our problems is the lamest excuse of all. So he said that he wants Obama to be a one-term president. Does anybody honestly believe that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich didn't want the same thing for Bill Clinton? Yet, that didn't stop Clinton from working effectively with Congressional Republicans.

Edited September 6, 201213 yr by Max

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

A Republican Ooops you said right mind...

Just kidding!!!

As always republicans underesitimated Bill. "Too long" "too wonky" "even washington insiders eyes started to glaze"...well not according to neilsen where Bill beat the NFL football game. Clinton is basically the closest thing politics has to a rock star. If they got rid of the amendment he would easily win a third term. It is just a shame Hillary didn't win so Bill could be backdoored into power.

As always republicans underesitimated Bill. "Too long" "too wonky" "even washington insiders eyes started to glaze"...well not according to neilsen where Bill beat the NFL football game. Clinton is basically the closest thing politics has to a rock star. If they got rid of the amendment he would easily win a third term. It is just a shame Hillary didn't win so Bill could be backdoored into power.

Why was that amendment created in the first place? I know it wasn't always that way.

Why was that amendment created in the first place? I know it wasn't always that way.

It was politically motivated for the most part and was gradually pushed once Roosevelt was elected to a third term. The ammendment was pased I think a few years after Roosevelt died. While not enforced by an ammendment prior to then, it was widely acknowledged that the president would serve no more than 2 terms.. I think many felt Roosevelt gained too much power due to his longevity in the office. The irony is that according to Doris Kearns Goodwins book on the Roosevelt's, "No Ordinary Time", Roosevelt allegedly did not want to run for a third term and was pressured into running due to the instability in the world climate because of World War 2. He was widely loved and respected by the American people and it was felt the country needed his leadership and strength during that time.

Every time a president serves that certain factions of the political hierarchy gravitate to, there tends to be talk about repealing it. It was talked about when Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton served.

Watching Bill Clinton lastnight was political poetry. And unfortunately his magnetic presence proved that Obama needed that boost that only he Bill could provide.

I know that the president alone cannot be held responsible for the economy. Obama gladly reminds us that his failures are the fault of Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But, he has had a Democratic Senate for his entire term, and a Democratic House for his first two years. He also refused to get a new chairman of the Federal Reserve when he had the chance, and instead re-appointed Ben Bernanke.

Whenever something goes right (like the auto bailout), the president has no problem taking all the credit. But all he does is blame others for the things which have gone wrong, which is absolutely cowardly. Personally, I think that blaming Mitch McConnell (the freaking MINORITY leader of the Senate) for our problems is the lamest excuse of all. So he said that he wants Obama to be a one-term president. Does anybody honestly believe that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich didn't want the same thing for Bill Clinton? Yet, that didn't stop Clinton from working effectively with Congressional Republicans.

On this agree we agree. Having had both he should have made more progress and he used it as a cushion. It's not until he lost The House and called it a "shellacking" he truly realized people were no longer mesmerized by his hope and change speeches and demanded real change, however you cannot even compare the earlier Republicans to these new breed who flat out does. not. want. anything. to do with Obama. At least some of those earlier Republicans were still willing to compromise on certain issues with Clinton. These Republicans do not want to compromise and they are infintely not interested in bipartisan policies for the sake of moving the country forward. What part of holding a meetinng the day of Obama's inaguaration to get rid of him, not returning any of his phone calls, and declining meetings at the White House is par the course? McConnell publically stating their idea of compromise is if Obama does things their way is a deep level of arrogance, hatred and disrespect.

And frankly, Obama hasn't gotten enough credit for the auto bailout nor Bin Laden's death because people have already forgotten. I guarantee you if it was Bush, Americans would still be giving that man a free pass at a third re-election after the montrosity of his presidency. It truly amazes me how many avid reminders Americans need - even through a slow economic recovery - to remember where they were four years, let alone eight years ago.

As always republicans underesitimated Bill. "Too long" "too wonky" "even washington insiders eyes started to glaze"...well not according to neilsen where Bill beat the NFL football game. Clinton is basically the closest thing politics has to a rock star. If they got rid of the amendment he would easily win a third term. It is just a shame Hillary didn't win so Bill could be backdoored into power.

Dems were nervous and 'pubs were hoping America's love of football would cause folks to tune out and Clinton delivered like I knew he would. He loved every minute of the crowd hanging on his every word and when he first strolled on stage with that cool swagger and [!@#$%^&*] eating grin I knew he was going to kill it. And yes, he's a political rock star. And he knows it.

Yes, if you watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. But according to Charles Krauthhammer on FOX Bill Clinton's speech was a failure, so who in their right mind would listen to anything anyone says on FOX?

Come on, ya'll (Marceline, Ann & QFan) are all better than that... three posts in a row that qualify as a DODGE of the question asked/topic raised! I didn't ask about FOX News... the Republican convention was LAST week. I wanted to talk about DEMOCRATS, since their convention is front and center THIS week!

However, though I didn't fully agree with Wales... I sure appreciate the response, offering up some things for me to think about. I'm craving dialogue and discussion...