Posted by antonsirius on 4/30/2011 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/30/2011 6:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 4/30/2011 12:26:00 AM (view original):
Lest you think this is only taking place in cowboy country:

Daniels Faces Defining Decision On Abortion Bill

The Indiana House of Representatives voted 66-32 on Wednesday to approve a controversial bill tightening the state's abortion restrictions and cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood, which now awaits the signature of Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), a potential presidential candidate who has yet to comment publicly on the politically sensitive legislation.

...

The legislation would introduce some of the nation's strictest anti-abortion laws to the Hoosier State, including a provision that outlaws abortions performed after the fetus reaches 20 weeks -- four weeks earlier than under current state law. Indiana would join Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma as the only states that outlaw abortions after 20 weeks.

A potential sticking point for Daniels, however, is the recent inclusion of a provision that cuts off funding for Planned Parenthood, the non-profit agency that provides reproductive health services to millions of women, including many of the state's Medicaid patients. Roughly half of Indiana births are covered by Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood's 28 state offices performed more than 5,500 abortions last year alone. Here's where it gets tricky for Daniels: due to federal statutes that prohibit states from selectively allocating funds to agencies that serve Medicaid recipients, the measure could cost Indiana millions of federal Medicaid dollars if it becomes law.

So the Federal Government is telling the states that if through the Democratic process their citizens choose to limit Federal Support for Abortion providers the feds will cut their funding?

Isnt this exactly what we have been saying?

Actually, it's the feds cutting funds for administering a federal program if that state's government tries to play politics with the program.

I'm posting these links to show a consistent pattern of GOP activity directly targeting Planned Parenthood's funding, even if that particular state's branch of PP doesn't perform abortions.

In other words, this isn't about stopping abortions any more, if it ever was.

Again PP is the largest single abortion provider in America.

So if it isnt about Abortion what is it?

It's about keeping the GOP's social conservative base riled up, and sticking it to what they perceive as a Democratic institution.

The targeting of Planned Parenthood has as much to do with abortion as the targeting of ACORN had to do with voter fraud.

I agree with Anton.

PP performs over 100,000 abortions a year.  ACORN was found guilty in Nevada for voter fraud.

No, they were found guilty of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. Those are two very different things.

Posted by antonsirius on 5/2/2011 11:33:00 AM (view original):
No, they were found guilty of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. Those are two very different things.

Couldnt there be a problem with all the effort to make voting easier for voter registration to become more of an issue?

I have no idea what you just tried to say.

Posted by antonsirius on 5/2/2011 2:17:00 PM (view original):
I have no idea what you just tried to say.

There is a growing effort across America to make voting easier.

If you combine bad registration with easier voting couldnt we be going down a path to voter fraud?

Here's the polite version of what I would normally say at this point:

I'll need to see some evidence of this "growing effort across America to make voting easier." If anything I'd say the trend is in the other direction.

Also, please take notice of how to phrase something when you are expressing an opinion. Your statement "There is a growing effort across America to make voting easier" is a flat statement of fact and will be a lie if you can't provide said evidence. Had you phrased it as "I think there is a growing effort across America to make voting easier" or the Limbaugh-esque "It seems to me that there is a growing effort across America to make voting easier" or something similar, then you're just stating an opinion and it can't be a lie if it turns out to be misinformed.

Far too often, you mistake your own opinions for verified facts.



All that said though, no, bad registration + easier voting doesn't necessarily = voter fraud.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-26-voting_x.htm
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-2-b-making-it-easier-to-vote-vs.-guarding-against-election-fraud.html
http://www.thetimesherald.com/article/20110412/OPINION01/104120323/Bills-make-voting-easier-merit
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20110413/OPINION01/104130401/Make-voting-easier-you-want-higher-turnout

That took 1 minute on google. I am sure you are going to find some problem with some of them. My point seems clear.

I dont need to tap dance in conversations. Even if you put "We are not responsible for injuries" on a ticket, it doesnt mean that you are not responsible for an injury. I speak my mind loud and proud. If you dont understand what I am saying just ask, I will explain it. You never want to explain your statements.

How many of the bills those articles talk about actually became law?

As for your second post, **** off liar.

We are talking about a theoretical issue.

There is a move to make voting easier. There didnt seem to be concern from the left about registration fraud.

I cannot understand why you cant admit the possiblity that it could be a problem.