The examples you cite for the abrogation of the rule of law pale in comparison
to the decision to invade Iraq, a violation of both the war making powers
domestically and international laws against genocide. You may have a minor
point here and there, but I have a good memory and recall your aiding and
abetting the Iraq disaster, with its hundreds of thousands of deaths, without so
much as a blink of an eye. I might listen to you more attentively were your
credibility not so shot.
I would fully support voter id laws if they were NOT designed in large part to
affect the outcome of elections. And, if they were actually addressing
something that was a problem.Neither of these things are true.
This editorial deserves national attention, and I am forwarding it to all my
friends. The ultimate irony is that Obama allegedly is a constitutional law
expert. Either that is an out-and-out lie, or he's an expert in the
Marxist-Leninist sense -- you understand the constitution so that you can ignore
and nullify it. This man is doing great damage to our system of government, all
for some 'higher purpose.' The destructiveness and self-righteousness
of this approach is plain to see for anyone who is really looking.
Once again DN, have some integrity. "Both sides.." then we get two
pages of conservative cripes. Secondly, the title says we're circumventing
the "rule of law" then goes on to describe legal maneuvers to circumvent
laws or policies. What about a Republican Senate that forces 61 yea
votes on anything the Democrats propose. Is that circumventing the law?Lastly, look around the world to what "circumventing the law"
really looks like. It looks like Egypt, Syria, etc. Your hyperbole is not
accurate or very professional.
A simple reading of the Constitution would clear up most "federal
duties". Those extra "duties" exist only in the minds of corrupt
and opportunistic politicians. The real "duties" of the federal
government are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. The are listed so that
no one can claim authority to do anything that has not been explicitly delegated
to the federal government by the people. Requiring or not requiring
voter I.D. is not on the list of "duties", therefore, it to be left to
the States or to the people. It is not a function of the federal government.
Rules and regulations written by bureaucrats are not part of the Constitution.
Executive orders are not part of the Constitution. Only Congress has authority
to legislate on the federal level. Eric Holder has no authority to legislate.
Barack Obama has no authority to legislate. His duty is to enforce the law.Dictators "dictate". Honorable and honest people work within
the bounds set for them by those who are in authority. The people, not the
President, are in authority. The President works for the people and is
obligated to do only what the Constitution has authorized him to do.
Re: "In each of these cases, the issues themselves are not as important as
the principles behind the rule of law."They certainly are to the
left-wing true believers that support these issues. And, therein lies the
problem. The advance of the left's political agenda trumps everything else,
in the childish, mindless, mirror-image echo chamber in which they choose to
operate. Suggesting that President Bush committing troops to protect
us from terrorism -- after the conveniently-forgotten approval of Congress -- is
somehow tantamount to scores of clear, cynical, politically-motivated, liberal
floutings of the law, particularly by the Obama regime, is a good illustration
of how willing the left is to abandon, not just the rule of law, but honesty,
decency, and any semblance of adhesion to civilized principle, as well, in order
to advance its agenda.Liberal thought can be circumscribed into that
great Orwellian principle -- "All animals are equal, but some animals are
more equal than others."Liberals believe everyone should follow
the law -- except liberals.
DN: "The rule of law requires all parties to submit to a process, respecting
outcomes with which they disagree"Republicans have never
respected the outcome of the election of Pres.Obama nor legislation that was
passed in Congress prior to the 2010 election. Presidents are given
the authority to appoint administrators/officers by the U.S. Constitution.#1 Instead of doing their job of allowing votes on Obama's
appointees, Republicans (like Senator Lee) have been filibustering even
non-controversial Judicial appointments. Republicans have been using the
filibuster not because the appointees are extremists but because they want to
undermine the functioning of the legally created NLRB, the CPFB, the ATF etc.#2 Texas voting laws, viewed as the strictest in the U.S., were struck
down earlier this year by the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for being
discriminatory. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision opened the door
for TX to reinstate them. (Note: The DOJ has not challenged all new voter ID
laws in the U.S.)#3 Prop 8 did get hearings in CA courts and they
lost. (R-Gov. Schwarzenegger is sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution laws
This article contains several errors.The Supreme Court's
decision on the Voting Rights Act upheld the basic principles of the act,
including the section under which the Attorney General is challenging
Texas' voter ID law. The Attorney General's actions are consonant
with the ruling and the Voting Rights Act which is designed to protect voters
from discriminatory voting laws, as for example's Texas' voter ID law.
The article is factually mistaken when it describes such actions as technical
and legal end runs around the court.California's public
officials defended Prop 8 in court. When Prop 8 was struck down by a federal
court, public officials chose to not appeal the ruling believing the state would
lose and appealing would be a waste of time and money, something well within
their authority.By contrast, the issue of appointees to NLRB arose
because Republicans in the Senate refused to permit a yes or no vote on the
appointees. The President followed the law and made appointments and submitted
them to the Senate. The Senate then failed to perform its legally required
function. The article fails to mention that fact.
You don't get to pick and choose what aspects of the rule of law you
support or don't support. You're either for the rule of law - in all
its myriad manifestations - or you're not. We don't live in a
Mobocracy, and the majority of the people of Texas have been shown to disregard
the Voting Rights Act, multiple times. Texas is still part of the
United States, where the supremacy clause in the Constitution applies even to
them. If Eric Holder is able to prosecute Texas successfully in court,
that's the rule of law at work, and it should be respected.The
Voter ID issue has been shown to be a Pinocchio-level exaggeration by
Republicans, but I'd be fine with this law if every voter was issued a
Voter ID card to encourage voter participation, like they've done in
Mexico, with good success. But that would diminish the advantage
Republicans are trying to get at the polls because they know many poor voters
don't have drivers licenses. And if they tried, in Texas the DMV would
reduce staff to discourage them from getting an ID.It's Texas,
The votes of the populace are always subject to the rule of the US Constitution.
This country is NOT a pure democracy -- it's a representative,
CONSTITUTIONAL democracy -- which means that majority/mob rule does NOT take
precedence over the rights of minorities.Your so-called "rule of
law" appears to actually mean "rule of mob". But Texas and
California are not sovereign states. They, like every other state, are subject
to the US Constitution -- no matter who their respective mobs may want to
The DN should also point out that this administration has instructed DEA not to
enforce the federal drug laws, thus the states medical and recreational laws.
ICE has been told not to enforce the immigration laws to those under 30. If the
standard is the Constitution, the President's oath clearly does not allow
for him to ignore enforcement of the laws.Regarding SCOTUS Voting
Rights Act decision, it clearly points out that, as the Constitution says, it is
the sole prerogative of the states to determine voting standards for its
citizens. Holder is making this a political issue, that is the only way his
actions can be described.@marxist - Congress, unfortunately, gave
Bush the authority to invade Iraq.@pragmatistferlife - the 60 vote
standard has been part of the Senate for decades and it has been used by BOTH
parties to make a statement.SCOTUS ruled that the parties defending
Prop 8 did not have standing. That was disappointing and short-sighted. They
should have handed down a decision that clearly defines the rights of citizens
to amend a state constitution via referendums. Do we or do we not have such
rights? Unfortunately, they left the answer hanging.
"...Liberal thought can be circumscribed into that great Orwellian principle
-- "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than
others."...".Wrong.Comparing humans to animals
is the signature move of the face and voice of the Republican Party Rep. Steven
King R-Iowa. "...Liberals believe everyone should follow the law
-- except liberals....".Wrong.Republicans believe
everyone should follow the law-- except Republicans.Exactly.
Isn't Senator Lee attempting to circumvent the law with his threats of
retribution over the Affordable Care Act?
The Deseret News is arguing against itself in the first portion of this opinion.
First, the editorial writer talks about laws "designed to preserve fairness
through democratic representation, with built-in protections for the rights of
minorities." But in arguing against the U.S. Attorney General's attempt
to subject Texas's election laws or methods to federal review, the same
writer claims it is "an attempt to circumvent the will of the people in
Texas." Actually, it is only the will of the majority that is being
questioned here, because there is no built-in protection for the rights of
minorities. What Eric Holder is doing is attempting to re-enable those
protections for minorities that were eliminated in Texas.Also, the
DN failed to point out all the Republican attempts to not implement or to repeal
the ACA, which is a law passed in Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court.
What? No problem with these shenanigans? Too bad Utah's official Republican
newspaper failed to mention that. But why should we expect it?
If President Obama is allowed to pick and choose the laws he will implement/
enforce as Chief Executive then am I allowed to pick and choose which laws I
follow? Congress passed (without a single Republican vote) he ACA with an
employer mandate and then when it becomes clear Democrats are going to get
smoked over it in 2014 he decides to unilaterally delay implementation. Are you
kidding me? That's the definition of lawlessness. And needless to say
Republicans get blamed for not "helping to fix" this travesty of a law.
And I want even get into what the IRS did to law abiding American citizens.
Peggy Noonan made a great point in her weekend column. Why is it that the party
that champions the benefits of big government apparently has no interest in
Governing? Cany anyone make an argument that this Admin has been even halfway
competent? The only thing the President is capable of doing is campaigning.
It's sad and it's scary.
@red state --"If President Obama is allowed to pick and choose
the laws he will implement/ enforce as Chief Executive then am I allowed to pick
and choose which laws I follow? "All executives (presidents and
governors) have the same right. Many previous presidents have exercised this
same right.Here's some papers and articles on the subject that
may help to educate you:-- "The Indefensible Duty to Defend"
at Columbia Law Review-- "Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute
Unconstitutional Statutes" (written in 1994 by the then-assistant US
Attorney General)-- "When May a President Refuse to Defend a
Statute?" at Northwestern University Law Review-- "Executivie
Discretion to Decline to Defend Federal Law Against Constitutional
Challenge" by the Palm Center for Sound Public Policy.
When I turned 18, to celebrate I went and registered to vote. I was so thrilled
that I had the authority to have my voice be heard. I don't understand why
there is a problem with showing I.D. Even if you are not a driver, you can still
get legitimate I.D. through your state. If you are not a citizen, you should not
be allowed to vote, period. I certainly wouldn't move to France on a visa
think I was allowed to vote in their elections unless I gave up my US
citizenship and was granted citizenship in France. Many of our leaders are not
following the Constitution. It was set-up the way it was for a purpose. It has a
check and balance system which, in many cases is being ignored. Just remember,
as was said centuries ago: Power corrupts and total power corrupts completely,
unless you are a selfless man like George Washington who could have been a king,
he was so popular, but chose to follow the Will of the People.
@Clarissa --"I don't understand why there is a problem with
showing I.D. "The problem is that many poor people don't
drive, and therefore don't have drivers' licenses. And it is often
difficult for them to get other state-recognized ID -- either they can't
take the time off work to go get it, or they can't afford transportation to
go get it, or they don't have a stable residence address to put on it, or
they don't have a copy of their birth certificate, or any of a myriad other
problems. So voter ID laws unfairly discriminate against the poor.
@ Truthseeker,You say that Prop 8 got hearings in California courts,
"but they lost."That is not true, which is the reason Prop 8
went to Federal Court.A problem with Prop 8 exists now that the
Supreme Court has ruled, leaving only Judge Walker's decision in place.
This causes a multitude of problems which the executive branch of the California
government is exploiting, perhaps illegally. It remains for the California
Supreme Court to rule conclusively on this, but the ambiguities in the federal
rulings and their relationship to California law will cause problems.The California Supreme Court ruled that Prop 8 was valid and that the private
citizens defending it had standing under California law. The US Supreme Court
ruled that the private citizens did not have standing under federal law, and
threw out the Appeals Court ruling, leaving Judge Walker's ruling intact,
which technically had validity under California law for only those couples who
sued and in only those counties where the lawsuits occurred.All of
this effectively gives veto power over voter-approved initiatives that the
California Constitution does not allow, throwing the entire process into chaos.
Poor people need ID to sign up for welfare and food stamps. I hear a
lot of excuses to stop America from making their elections honest.
I have to agree with lets debate. If someone is so incompetent that they cannot
figure out how to get a state ID card they probably should not be voting at all.
If they can figure out how to qualify for unemployment and welfare, they can
figure out how to get an ID card.
Re: ""...Liberals believe everyone should follow the law -- except
liberals.... Wrong."Oh, I think we all agree it's wrong.The next question -- why are liberals consistently allowed to get away
When a court upholds the Justice Department's position in the Texas case, I
hope we will not see a Deseret News editorial condemning "activist
Perhaps I cursory review of the Constitution by those who don't like the
idea of a Constitutional Republic would be helpful. Mike Richards above stated
it very clearly. Words have meaning, including those written in our
Constitution. If those words don't have meaning, then it can mean anything
you want, which is why the socialists, Marxists, and liberals have no difficulty
in proposing any number of programs and ideas that have nothing to with
Constitutional government. If those words have no meaning, then why do we even
have a Constitution? Let's just let whoever is in power, however they got
there, to run things however they want, which, by the way, seems to be how
Barack Obama interprets those words. Republicans haven't done much better,
Ronald Reagan excepted.
@marxist:"The examples you cite for the abrogation of the rule of law
pale in comparison to the decision to invade Iraq..."Who are you
trying to castigate here, anyway? Iraq was invaded as a result of Iraq invading
Kuwait. And it was done with the approval and consent of the US Congress
(Authorization to use Military Force Against Iraq).
@JoeBlow:"I would fully support voter id laws if they were NOT
designed in large part to affect the outcome of elections."Voter
ID laws are, in fact, designed to affect the outcome of elections... That is, to
keep non citizens from voting, those who would vote Democrat if they could vote.
And in Texas (and many other states) there are alotta potential non citizen
votes... called illegal immigrants.@pragmatistferlife:"Secondly, the title says we're circumventing the "rule of
law" then goes on to describe legal maneuvers to circumvent laws or
policies."Are you saying giving a two year amnesty to certain
illegal immigrants contrary to immigration law is... a legal maneuver? Not so.
It's more correctly called an 'illegal maneuver.'
This is an excellent article and makes many good points. It becomes more and
more obvious that the guy in the White House and his buddy, the US Attorney
General think of themselves as autocrats and above the law. They ignore laws
they don't like and make up laws to accomplish some bizarre goals.
These are not illegal methods for achieving changes that need to be made in the
law. I think this column is arguing based on disagreement with the current
administration and political party in power. The Republicans and
their respective presidential administrations have done similar things when they
had power, too. It was their own fault and divisiveness that got this current
administration elected. Why are people complaining? We are simply
getting exactly what we asked for and deserved!
Re: "The problem is that many poor people don't drive . . . ."That's not the problem. There are actually very, very few poor
people that don't drive, even fewer that don't have an acceptable
government-issued ID.The real problem is this -- Democrats have have
decided to win elections by cheating, and voter-ID laws render their plans to
cheat somewhat less effective.With voter-ID, tried and true Democrat
tactics, like get-out-the-vote drives aimed at illegal aliens and convicted
felons, founder. The well-known Democrat trick of busing vagrants all over town
to "vote early, vote often" is also affected.Even Democrat
pollworkers are discouraged from voting for relatives, dead and alive.Since only Democrats employ these tactics, yeah, voter-ID laws suppress
Democrat votes.But, rightly so.
wtz,,"Are you saying giving a two year amnesty to certain illegal immigrants
contrary to immigration law is... a legal maneuver? Not so. It's more
correctly called an 'illegal maneuver.'". No. I was talking
about the article and the inconsistency from the title to it's contents.
The article doesn't say anything about immigration, so don't put words
in my mouth and stay on topic. As to the democrats also using the
rule of 61 to block legislation, so what? Is it circumventing the law and rules
or isn't it? It would fall in the same general area as Eric Holder using a
not very often used part of the voting rights act to force Texas to be fair.
@ Marxist: As I recall, both parties voted to invade Iraq and it was done
legally. “Genocide”?? Seriously? We did not even come
close to committing genocide. We went into Iraq to SAVE the people from a cruel
dictator. Those Iraqis whose family members were brutally tortured by Hussein or
his sons were grateful to have been RESCUED by the US. My guess is that if your
family members were the ones being tortured in Iraq, you too would be grateful
for the US invasion.@ Contrarius As RichardB points out, poor people
already need ID. You have to have it to get into a bar, and many poor people
still go to bars. All those arguments about how voter ID laws
“discriminate” are just excuses to try to allow voter fraud.
Re:JeffJudge Walker ruled in the first Prop 8 case, Perry v
Schwarznegger, that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.Then, in 2011, the
California Supreme Court agreed that proponents of Prop 8 had standing to
appeal. Proponents filed an appeal.On February 7, 2012, a
three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2–1
majority opinion affirming the judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which
declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, saying it violated the Equal Protection
Clause. The opinion, written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt and joined by Judge
Michael Hawkins, states that Proposition 8 did nothing more than lessen the
status and dignity of gays and lesbians, and classify their relationships and
families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The court found that the
people of California, by using their initiative power to target a minority group
and withdraw the right to marry they once possessed under the California State
Constitution, violated the federal Constitution.Proponents then
"filed" an "appeal" to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many have brought up good points about the inaccuracies in this article,
I'd like to point out that leaving one or two people in the house so that
you can say "the lights are on, we're not in recess" is bogus.
Either you have a quorum there or you don't. Keeping a few people there
doesn't constitution "lights on" so you can keep the president from
making recess appointments.
Re: "Judge Walker ruled in the first Prop 8 case, Perry v Schwarznegger,
that Prop 8 was unconstitutional."Yeah, and that is the only
ruling that survived the Supreme Court's scrutiny. The Ninth Circus opinion
was rendered null and void by the Court's ruling on the standing issue --
because liberal California officials violated their oaths of office and refused
to represent the millions of voters who approved Prop 8.Which means
that the ruling governing millions of Californians today -- in violation of
their voting rights -- is the one issued, in contravention of every principle of
legal ethics, by a hand-picked, avowed homosexual, who admits he wants to marry
his "partner."Or, in other words, it's tantamount to
having a murderer decide whether the murder statute is, or is not
constitutional.In even better words, it's an absolute,
unmitigated travesty of justice that destroys the rule of law in America.
Senator Lee demonstrated the egg on the face outcome of attempting to obstruct
and coerce government.
@Contrarius:"The problem is that many poor people don't drive,
and therefore don't have drivers' licenses."Too
funny... if they don't driver's licenses, how is it they can go to
vote? "And it is often difficult for them to get other
state-recognized ID..."Perhaps the problem is, they aren't
US citizens."...either they can't take the time off work to
go get it..."Everybody has some time off. Just depends on
priorities... whether it's more important to get a hamburger, fries, and a
drink or an ID."...or they can't afford transportation to
go get it..."Canceling the TV cable or giving up the cell phone
should provide sufficient cash for transportation."... or they
don't have a stable residence address to put on it..."Especially when the stable residence address is someplace in Mexico or
Guatemala."...or they don't have a copy of their birth
certificate..."Every citizen can get a copy of their birth
certificate... provided they were born in the US and can remember the state of
their birth."So voter ID laws unfairly discriminate against the
poor."Voter ID laws assure that only citizens vote.
@RG --"You have to have it to get into a bar, and many poor
people still go to bars."Wow. You really want to base voter ID
laws on your perception of the drinking habits of poor people? Really??@procuradorfiscal --"There are actually very, very few poor
people that don't drive"You're kidding, right??My mother spends a large chunk of her days volunteering to drive poor
people around town to do their shopping, go to doctor's appointments, and
such, because they can't drive themselves. And you think these people are
imaginary?? Really??In fact, **11%** of voting-age US citizens lack
a government-issued ID, as reported by NYU's Brennnan Center.
Democrats don't want voter ID because only the least imaginative, dumbest
people among us, whose lives are an endless stream of ridiculous excuses and
whining about their victimhood, are affected by such laws - or those who
don't want their voter fraud activities curtailed. It's a relatively
insignificant minority of the population, and probably would never make a dent
in the margin of victory in any election. But, they vote nearly 100% Democrat,
as do those who think so little of them that they claim to believe these people
are really incapable of getting ID's without herculean, of not impossible
effort. Although I clearly think little of them, I have enough confidence in
them to believe they can get an ID without losing their jobs. Good grief people,
can we never find the bottom of the acceptable incompetence barrel?
In September 2012, News21, affiliated with Arizona State University,
investigated voter fraud in the US. They found that between 2000 and 2012, when
hundreds of millions of votes were cast, there were 2068 cases of voter fraud.
Voter ID laws would have prevented 10 of them. It's a solution to a
problem that is all but nonexistent.@procuradorfiscal - the 9th
circuit court ruled against Prop 8; Judge Walker's decision was legally
sound. If the Supreme Court found the proponents had standing and simply upheld
the previous rulings, Prop 8 would have been struck down. The principle of
judicial review has been around as long as the US. All laws, even those voted
on by a majority of people, are subject to judicial review and can be found
unconstitutional - Jim Crow, as for example, was unconstitutional even though a
majority in the South in the era supported it.Rule of law is an
interlocking system of processes for redress of injustice through legislative
and judicial means. If legislative processes fail, citizens should examine
judicial avenues. Our system is intended to work the will of the majority and
protect the rights of the minority. It requires an ongoing balancing act.
"The problem is that many poor people don't drive, and therefore
don't have drivers' licenses. And it is often difficult for them to
get other state-recognized ID"Yeah, right!??If dead
people can do it, and poor, non-English speaking, illegal immigrants can get
ID's, I am sure the poor citizens can too.Lamest argument
ever!!! All to protect the democrats ability to cheat in elections.
Voter ID laws are not just keeping "poor" people from voting. Other
groups being disenfranchised are the elderly and college students. Every state
designs its own requirements for what constitutes proper voter identification.
For example:"A 63-year-old Air Force veteran testified
today that Pennsylvania's new voter identification law could prevent him
from voting in upcoming elections because he has been unable to get a
state-issued photo ID card.Danny Rosa of West Chester said poor
health and eyesight have prevented him from getting a Pennsylvania driver's
license.And when a friend gave him an hour-long ride to the PennDOT
center nearest his house, the clerk refused to issue the photo ID because the
name on his New York birth certificate is Daniel Guerra -- changed later to
Daniel Rosa after his mother married his stepfather. Rosa is the name on his
discharge papers and his Veterans Administration ID card.Another
witness for the plaintiffs today was Joyce Block of Doylestown, whose maiden
name of Altman is on her birth certificate but whose married name of Block is on
her Social Security card.She, too, was refused a photo id."(Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
Contraries said: "My mother spends a large chunk of her days volunteering to
drive poor people around town to do their shopping, go to doctor's
appointments, and such, because they can't drive themselves. "So why can't she also volunteer to take them to get the i.d. they would
need to vote?Sounds like you have described a system where the poor
are finding alternative ways to get to where they need to go, even without cars,
they can't add "getting a state issued i.d. To their list of errands?
@Fred --"Sounds like you have described a system where the poor
are finding alternative ways to get to where they need to go, even without cars,
they can't add "getting a state issued i.d. To their list of
errands?"You guys seem remarkably out of touch with reality.Look back at my earlier post. According to the Brennen Center's
report, **11%** of voting-age US citizens don't have any government-issued
ID. That's not a problem that can be wished away or solved with a
contemptuous wave of the hand.Look back at glendenbg's post. As
he said: "Voter ID laws would have prevented 10 of them. It's a
solution to a problem that is all but nonexistent."Photo IDs
would NOT prevent rampant voter fraud -- because there IS no rampant voter fraud
occurring. The only thing that voter ID laws do is to prevent US citizens from
having their voices heard at the polls.Did Thomas Jefferson show an
ID before he voted?
In worrying about this you are, as the saying goes, rearranging the deck chairs
on the Titanic. As the decay of the capitalist system accelerates the only rule
or law of importance is #6 of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not
People can find ways to do EVERYTHING they need to do, or want to do in their
lives, and all kinds of community groups will take them anywhere they want to
go, but they can't figure a way to get an ID. Sure. I think it takes an
embarrassingly high level of gullibility to believe it's so difficult.
Let's see. Which would be easier to prove?: That thousands of illegal
immigrants are willing to risk arrest by committing voter fraud, which is a
premise the Bush administration tried and failed to prove, OR that Rick Perry
and certain other GOP governors want FEWER votes cast against them, whether
they're legal or NOT? My bet is on the latter.
@LetsDebate --"People can find ways to do EVERYTHING they need
to do, or want to do in their lives"Ummmm. Right.That's why everyone has a full-time job, lives in a comfortable
three-bedroom house, eats three hot meals a day, and has complete insurance
coverage.Right?Cmon, people. Get real. This is the Real
World, not sunshine-and-roses fantasy land.@Scoundrel --in re: national IDsI have two words for you: States'
Rights.Oooo, two more words for you: Big Brother.
@Contrariuser - it's people and leaders making excuses for those who
won't step up to address the most essential and even mundane elements of
life that has led to the whiny entitlement state that now permeates our nation
like never before. Leaders with a mindset like yours have taken the concept of
a reasonable safety net and expanded it to a ridiculous extreme, convincing some
that even getting an ID is simply too difficult for them, even though people and
community organizations will help them get one for free. It's still just
too high of an expectation. How pathetic. You do them no favors, and our
government has incentivized laziness and entitlement.
I guess the difference is some people lack that ability to see beyond their own
neighborhoods and narrow vision of what constitutes ALL the citizens of The
USA.About the driving nonsense, heres a little stat: Average
household in Utah owns 3 cars while in New York 1 in 5 household own a car. I
just love how the poor are portrayed by you compassionate conservatives,
they're lazy they're greedy it's just such a sodom and gomorrah
mentality, seems there was a message in that tale?
Our country is being driven to bankruptcy by the delusion that, among the poor,
there is not a growing class of simply lazy and entitled people. Of course, we
can't address that, because people like HVH pull the shame card to stop any
debate about it. Because legitimately needy people live in need of a safety
net, that somehow means nobody is abusing the system, and anyone who challenges
the overextension and incentivizing of the welfare state are just heartless
Sodomites. How ridiculous and pathetically condescending to those who can and
should get off welfare.Also, nice attempt to compare apples and
oranges in a shameless attempt to make Utahns look greedy. As you probably
know, the family size in NY is significantly smaller than Utah. Children with
driver licenses means more vehicles in any state. Millions of New Yorkers also
live where owning a vehicle is horribly inconvenient and expensive to park, and
they take public transit and taxis because it simply makes more sense. The
poverty of ghettos and slums does contribute to the disparity of which you
speak. I suppose Utah should work on creating slums to narrow the greed gap.
@Lets, You present no evidence of this lazy entitlement class and ignore the
fact that baby boomers and veterans going into retirement are part of your lazy
class.Wasn't trying to make Utah look greedy, I was pointing
out the lack of need for drivers licenses where one doesn't drive and knows
by recognition those with whom they do business.What a rant thought,
you must really detest those in need.
@HVH - what part of "legitimately needy people live in need of a safety
net" don't you understand? I never suggested baby boomers and veterans
going into retirement are a lazy class.If you really need evidence
that SOME (to avoid confusion - not EVERY welfare recipient, not ALL baby
boomers, not ALL retired veterans, not EVERY unemployed person, etc.), again,
SOME are indeed lazy and exploit the system, then you need to simply wake up. I
personally know many, and every person with whom I engage in a discussion knows
people, usually family members, who are capable of working but have become
programmed to take welfare as an easier route. There's an epidemic of
laziness and entitlement, whether you'll admit it or not. The worst
researcher on the planet could find hundreds of examples, so even you should be
able to dig up some evidence on your own. But, like those you rationalize for,
I suppose you want it handed to you.I love those truly in need, and
help wherever and whenever I can, in many different ways.What a
deluded rant though, you must really detest those who believe in personal