Conservative Policies Help Poor People
- Print print this page
- Discuss 64 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
The superpower that defines the United States was based upon a conservative model that minimizes government and maximizes cheap and plentiful energy.
So too, much of America's economic decline over the past several decades can be directly traced to the rise in energy prices and the control of that energy by foreign powers, most of which do not like us.
Yet, over the past decade or two, American and Canadian geologists have found a reasonable replacement for the once-abundant oil riches of Texas, California and Pennsylvania.
Canadian tar sands, together with the new science of Hydraulic fracturing, have given America a new source of abundant and cheap oil and natural gas sufficient to keep the United States a superpower for the next hundred years.
America should be having a party, but liberals are not happy. Some just cannot tolerate a prosperous nation while so much of the world is mired in poverty and war. These people will only be satisfied when Moore County looks like Mexico City.
Others are scared that prosperity will destroy our planet. They want us to live under a plan for government energy rationing by taxing the lifeblood of the American economy, coal, natural gas and petroleum.
These liberal policies, which discourage energy production, are the cruelest for those in poverty, the very same people that liberals claim to champion. "Carbon tax," a euphemism for "energy tax," raises the cost of energy itself.
In reality, energy suppliers like Exxon and Duke Energy do not much care. To the extent that energy taxes affect the entire industry equally, then no supplier is placed at a competitive disadvantage.
Each supplier simply passes along the tax to consumers, some of whom can afford it and some of whom cannot. The resulting rise in the price of energy raises the price of food and, for some, makes heating a home in winter prohibitive.
The result is that liberals fly around the world burning up slightly more expensive carbon in private jets, touting their success in saving the planet, while poor children go cold because of the high cost of heating oil. Liberals pat themselves on the back because higher prices make consumption of energy in America look more like the energy consumption in Europe. Meanwhile, the higher transportation cost for food means that low income workers can afford less.
When government regulates, prices rise. It works the same way in energy as it does in health care. Since the passage of the "Affordable Care Act," has anyone experienced more affordable health care?
Of course, when Blue Cross raised my rates the past January, I simply made fewer trips to my local breakfast restaurant. My cutback, together with others similarly situated may have cost a waitress at a local "hash house" her job.
For me, it was more irritation than calamity. For that waitress, however, my irritant became her cancer, possibly driving her family into the dependency of the Welfare State. And maybe, that is the liberals' goal.
Clearly, government must create some regulation. Hydraulic fracturing cannot be allowed to contaminate groundwater or make faucets flammable. But the goal of government regulation must be to enable energy production, making energy abundant and cheap.
Interestingly, adopting this conservative model will not have much effect on the lifestyle of Country Club Republicans. Many have assets that rise in value with the rise in energy, health care and overall inflation. The true benefit will be felt by those working poor and lower-middle-class voters who generally vote Democratic.
For these hard workers, lower energy costs mean more jobs, more abundant and affordable food and, perhaps, less reliance upon the ever present Welfare State, ready to trade independence for dependency.
I am a conservative not because I jealously want to keep my wealth from being shared. I am a conservative because I believe that less government regulation is the best way to ensure a share of America's wealth for everyone.
In terms of energy, this means less regulation and increased production, but not be done for the sake of the wealthy.
The conservative economic model for energy and health care benefits most the poor and working poor. It is a model that enables them, like me, to feed their children, heat their home and reach for the American Dream.
Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
Wow, Bob, that's some weapon's grade straw men right there. Cheap energy is a conservative idea? Tell that to FDR.
Speaking of whom, the golden age of our ascendancy to world economic status happened under the conservative icons FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK/LBJ, Nixon and Carter. Quite the right-wing pantheon.
Let's look at this from a liberal perspective. We suggest that our rise to economic powerhouse status was a confluence of the (government funded) GI Bill , union organizing and negotiating (giving us the five-day workweek, sick pay, decent wages), and the New Deal's Social Security. And don't forget Nixon's signing of HR 1, Medicare. You conservatives are a surprising lot.
Oh, and most of the ACA's provisions don't even take effect until next year. Kind of impatient, aren't we?
Face it; the very programs that made this country the economic giant that it is today was accomplished against conservative opposition. Since Reagan 'broke' the unions, pay has stagnated and we are watching the death of the middle class, which was one of liberalism's signal creations.
This country did not become great because of conservative values but in spite of them. Nice spinning.
skylinefirepest 2 months, 1 week ago
Yes, Mr. Heim, cheap energy is a Republican, Conservative idea in this day and age. The Democrats, Liberals, want to spend a crapload of money to build or subsidize "clean, green" energy...and there just isn't any viable clean energy at this time. So we the people are paying throught the nose to give money to companies that don't provide, or fail comepletely and that money is gone forever down the tax and spend liberal hole. I'll remind you that this country became great not because of Dems or Reps but because we all had a vision of what success was and worked towards that dream. The dream of today's society is to get on the public dole and let the government ( read that as "we the people" who are left ) pay for their housing, their food, their unemployment, etc. This country used to have pride and people worked for what they had. We're going quickly down the tubes, in large part because of this current administration, because now we are being "given" instead of working for our dream.
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
Well done Mr Levy.
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
JimHeim (and every other liberal who listens to him)-- I am posting Jimmy Carter's uplifting speech to America in 1977 about energy...especially oil and gas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePp.... I would urge anyone curious about whether JimHeim is correct to view the entire Carter clip. But if you are easily bored (as most were with Carter), fast forward to the 4 min. 15 sec. mark, and listen to him say "by the 1980s" the world will demand more oil than we can produce, and (at the 4 min. 25 sec. mark), he claims we are now running out of gas and oil. Yes, 36 years ago, this was the liberal mantra. Now, the U.S. is believed to have more oil than the entire Middle East, and will soon surpass Saudi Arabia in oil production: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/11/12/so-long-middle-eastern-oil-hello-american/. Liberals were wrong in the 70s. The 80s. The 90s, etc. But they don't care. Cheers!
nothingspecial 2 months, 1 week ago
So true, Mr. Levy this administration's policies have WITHOUT A DOUBT buried the most vulnerable folks who want to earn a living thru the high energy prices and growing unemployment.
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
It's actually the 2 min. 45 sec. mark where Carter claims, "by the early 1980s" the world will demand more oil and gas than it can produce...sorry for the typo. Too funny! Cheers!
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
And remember, Carter (as President) repeated the liberal mantra to America 36 years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePp.... Carter said that we are consuming so much oil that "just to stay even" (2 min. 23 sec. mark), the world must make "a new Texas every year"; "an Alaskan North Slope every 9 months"; "or a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years." Of course, what he said then was nonsense...and today looks foolish. So liberals today pretend Carter didn't say it, or if they concede the point, will say Carter meant well. Not quite. Carter said 36 years ago what liberals today are still saying. On this topic, quite embarrassing. Cheers!
clarabelle 2 months, 1 week ago
levy and his lemmings............ too funny
njc17 2 months, 1 week ago
Clarabelle, do you have anything of value to say? What IS your take on oil and coal? on natural gas? on wood burning? What is your idea of gas powered cars or diesel powered cars and trucks? Do you understand the folly of ethanol? Instead of insulting everyone you don't agree with, provide solid debate..
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
clarabelle-- I don't know Mr. Levy. But I suspect you know President Carter, and are familiar with his predictions in 1977. Did they come true? Even close? Why not? My best to you. Cheers!
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
I will again post President Carter's 1977 address to the nation and the world, so that liberals here can't claim that I'm misquoting him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePp.... Priceless. And grossly inaccurate. False. And stupid. And if there is such a phrase, "grossly stupid." Such a seemingly nice man...the President...says such nonsense. Cheers!
Yukonjohn 2 months, 1 week ago
Thatcher, how are you my friend? I hope you and yours had a great weekend. We sure did, nice weather and sunshine on our fresh fallen snow. Well, you are 100% correct on Jimmy Carter. One of our greatest Presidents, AFTER HE LEFT THE WHITE HOUSE!!! He as a pitiful President, but a really good man. I served under his administration, and while it was a good party, we were not prepared for the world we lived in. He did nothing good for Alaska nor oil production. If left up to him, we would live n a huge park.
JimRussell44 2 months, 1 week ago
Yukonjohn, I wouldn't mind living in a huge park and I bet most of the folks who used to live in Detroit would feel the same way. We don't live in a park because we have determined that it is more important to have McMansions, three cars, 5 TVs, a $500.00 per month cell phone bill, all the latest video games and all the various forms of instant gratification. It's choices we make. This country could easily have full employment, universal health care, quality education and lives lived in park like settings if we decided to do so. We decided that full bore capitalism was a better way to live. We called it "The American Dream". We decided that conspicuous consumption was the road to Nirvana. We decided that life should be a competition with winners and loosers. Some folks like me have never agreed with that premise. Life is short. Try to do no harm and just enjoy living it.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
People spending their own money, that which isn't confiscated by government, on things of their own choosing. You make it sound like they shouldn't be allowed to do that. What would you prefer to your outline above?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Compared to this, Jimmy Carter is looking really good right about now. At least his damage was fixable.
JimRussell44 2 months, 1 week ago
Geoff Cutler, I've just gone back and re-read what I wrote. Even looking between the lines, I see no indication that people should not be allowed to make their own choices. In fact, that's exactly what I said: "It's choices we make". Within the structure we have, I attempt to live my life as simply as is possible. I only suggest that it's the right way for me. For those who want to live life in the fast lane, have at it. In the meantime, hope you don't mind if I live in my beautiful, park like setting, enjoying all that nature provides on a budget that makes me smile. I'll be content to eat chicken eggs, while the rest of you demand the finest in fish eggs because, as you said, it's your money and you can spend it anyway you desire.
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
JimRussell44-- My point in posting the Jimmy Carter "energy speech" from 1977 was to show how liberals (like Carter) try to scare people by using falsehoods. Certainly Carter's claims that we'll need a "new Texas every year," or a "new Saudi Arabia every three years" just to have available gas and oil...and that we'd run out of this energy by the 1980s, were false. He had liberal "scientists" telling him this nonsense. The same liberal "scientists" who first advanced global cooling and a coming Ice Age in the '70s, and the same liberal "scientists" who used to preach "global warming" but have now settled on "climate change." All of this nonsense, in whatever form, is designed to control how people live their lives, and to give more power to government to solve these fake "problems." And for what it's worth, I'm with you...I prefer chicken eggs, and have never lifted my pinkie to eat fish eggs. Cheers!
Arestorer 2 months, 1 week ago
Carter only said what he thought and what information was availible in 1977....Technology has changed quite a bit since then.....Though, I would never defend Carter as a President...
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
Arestorer-- I disagree. Carter said what liberals told him about "...the information (that) was available in 1977." Technology did not change much from 1977 until the "1980s," when Carter said this supply would be exhausted. What he said was simply false, and designed to scare folks. I agree with you that you should never defend Carter as a President. Cheers!
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
"This country could easily have full employment, universal health care, quality education and lives lived in park like settings if we decided to do so. We decided that full bore capitalism was a better way to live. We called it "The American Dream". We decided that conspicuous consumption was the road to Nirvana. We decided that life should be a competition with winners and loosers. Some folks like me have never agreed with that premise." JER
We decided to have full bore Capitalism, a premise you don't agree with, So what premise do you agree with? How would you have us achieve our "American Dream," one you could agree with?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
You know, it's curious. The modern liberal doesn't seem to like America very much. He sees better somewhere else, in other nations with Universal Healthcare, birth to death state entitlements, and God knows what else. The Conservative recognizes that we have issues that needed and need to be dealt with to better us as a nation. But he believes in the building blocks, that the foundations of our country are the best the world's ever seen. Freedom, he believes, comes from the people, the individual, the person who will take advantage of that freedom and become the best he can be, or go the farthest he can go. If that means he becomes rich, then that means he has succeeded. The Liberal is jealous of that wealth, The Liberal doesn't trust the individual, or that individual's freedom. The Liberal trusts the collective to know what's best for the individual. The Liberal wants the collective to decide what freedom means, and what laws and regulations will be required to achieve that end. The Liberal believes in government to fulfill the collective's desires. The Liberal puts his faith in government while the Conservative puts his faith in himself. The founders believed freedom resided with the individual. The Conservative isn't radical, he's not a wingnut...he's someone who lives and adheres to the American Dream as our founders envisioned it. To the liberal, government has yet to achieve what the Conservative takes for granted.
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
"The modern liberal doesn't seem to like America very much."
That has seemed to be the case for as long as I can remember. Very well said, Geoff
dentman65 2 months, 1 week ago
Geoff- that may be one of your best posts or least it is to me. I worked day and night to get my business off the ground, something only business owners know unless they had a very rich uncle.I'll give my fair share and pay what I owe......but I'm sick of everyone telling me I should give more of what I have sweated for just because someone feels others should be entitled; that all should have the identical healthcare that I have worked hard to be able to afford, and when many priorities are spending their paychecks on cigarettes and beer and hot rods instead of getting their priorities in line. I have worked as hard as I have because I didn't want to be someone who could not afford to go to the doctor, or had to pull my own teeth so I'd still have money to party.
Toyboy52 2 months, 1 week ago
When the price of gasoline doubles because of lack of production, the government edict to double fuel mileage gives no gain to the working poor. Moreover, since the poor cannot afford a new car with higher mileage, the whole liberal effort to save energy falls devastatingly onto the backs of the poor. The liberals tout higher fuel prices with lower consumption and the working poor are left with old used cars, low gas milage and high fuel costs.
Increasing fuel production leading to greater supply and lower prices is one way to help the poor. But liberals want to "save the planet" even if the working poor cannot afford food or fuel.
Bob Levy
Yukonjohn 2 months, 1 week ago
Good Posts, All of them!! It is not going to take too long for us to see the effects of our current Administration. And yes, mr Levy, l agree, the poor are going to suffer the most. And on top of that, they are going to be sorely confused....what went wrong, they will say.
JimRussell44 2 months, 1 week ago
Geoff Cutler, while I often disagree with the positions of many conservatives, that fact doesn't automatically make me a liberal. I don't always agree with the liberal positions. It's just that some liberal positions are closer to my beliefs than most conservative positions. Like I've said before, I'm in the middle, politically. While your post about the evils of liberalism vs the wonderfulness of conservatism was eloquently stated, it is far off the mark in my opinion. In your view, this country is made up of 314 million mini-nations, all looking out for themselves. Like it or not, we share this planet with over 7 billion others and we must find ways to live together for the mutual benefit of all of us.
JimRussell44 2 months, 1 week ago
Geoff Cutler, you asked what premise I thought we should pursue. My answer is: Simplicity. I recognise that not all people are created identical. There will always be leaders and followers. There will always be folks who are motivated to a greater degree than others. I'm a believer in isolationism. If we don't have it or can't make it here, we don't need it. 314 million people require lots of "things" so jobs are required to provide them. If we are not buying these things from the cheapest off shore source or allowing cheap foreign labor in to do the work, we'll have more than enough jobs to go around. When everybody is working, we can afford to support health care and education for everyone. The problems arise when greed steps in. To me, there is no question that those with the most difficult jobs earn the most money. But work is, to me, not the purpose for life, but rather a necessity of life. In my premise, everyone has a job, lives a comfortable life, and enjoys the short time we have before we die. We have bought into the myth that wealth is good and makes you happy. And in the world today, that might not be completly incorrect. In my premise, the rich don't need nearly as much wealth to be happy, thus freeing up some wealth for the rest to live comfortably on as well. When everyone is closer to being in the same boat, I think we would all tend to get along with each other a lot better. But that's just my opinion. Do I think we would ever come close to what I propose? No chance in hell. How you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen what 50 billion dollars can buy.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
JER, you express the modern Liberal ethos very well.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Shortly after Obama was first elected, I met a man from Iceland while waiting to board a plane. Our discussion turned to politics and our new president. The man asked, did we Americans not understand what we had just done? Did we not understand that Socialist policy he would impose on us would not bring economic equality to our poor? Did we not know that they would in fact become poorer? Did we not know that our middle class would disappear, that only Obama and his business cronies would become richer? Why, he asked, were we so blind that we couldn't look across the Atlantic and see the evidence of this? I had no answer except to say that Americans could not know how to protect a freedom they no longer understood.
LadyLynda 2 months, 1 week ago
Geoff - Do you agree that it is the pursuit of that golden apple on the fence is what built America and keeps many of us working harder and harder? The American Dream of working hard and smart and bettering ourselves to earn a better income so we can well provide for our families and ourselves is still alive I hope. It sounds like your isolationism is what I have always thought - Buy American! But I have tried and it is a lot harder than one would think. Does anyone know why old houses never had many closets? It is because no-one owned all of this crap. We didn't have all this stuff! It was another good post on this subject.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
LadyLynda, my belief in the American Dream as you describe and the American Dream of Obama, and say, JER, are two different dreams.Yesterday, I noticed one of my postage stamps was stamped with the word "equality." And I thought...that's not right...the word is "equal." There's a difference. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created (equal,) that they are endowed by their Creator...."
We are equal. Our rights and our freedom is innate, granted by a creator, not government. Governments attempt to artificially create equality. Governments attempt to redistribute income equally. Governments institute affirmative action programs to promote job site equality. Governments look at healthcare and view it as a right of equality. Governments take away the freedom of the individual and give it to the masses in the name of equality.
Our founders intent was to put us all on the same starting line. We are "equal." Obama's intent is to make sure that everyone in the race crosses the finish line at the same time. "Equality." That has never happened, and all the countries that have tried to make everyone a winner have failed.
There are now almost 47 million people on food stamps. Are they winners? ObamaCare is the law of the land. We're running roughly a $17 trillion debt. There hasn't been a federal budget in over 4 years. I'd say the American Dream is in peril as it has never been before.
LSM 2 months, 1 week ago
The American Dream? This seems to be the new reality: 1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/
What is the famous quote? “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.” ― Vladimir Lenin
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
LSM - How many guns does the federal government own? How many non-military government agents carry guns? How many bullets does each gun carrier need for operations and training?
When you can answer these questions, we can assess whether the federal government is buying ammunition in reasonable quantities. Otherwise this is just mindless worrying.
What was George Carlin's famous quote? 'It’s called the American Dream—because you have to be asleep to believe it.'
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Your disdain for America and its founder's intent is showing again, Jim.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Until you can answer why the federal government is attempting to restrict the right of American gun ownership while at the same time purchasing 1.6 billion rounds of hollow point ammunition and 2,717 armored vehicles to be used on American streets, we'll just consider you mindless.
LSM 2 months, 1 week ago
If there were 500,000 armed non-military government workers with firearms, that would be 3200 rounds for each one of them. A little over-kill I believe.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
LSM - There's that 'if' word. I take it that you don't actually know the scope of the firearms usage in the federal government. And you may not be aware of the time period that these rounds are being purchased for. One year Two? Five? Would that make a difference?
And exactly where did the number of rounds come from. I've been reading accounts that show a number just in the millions up to the figure you're accepting. The number seems to grow with each passing week. I'd rather have firmer facts. But that's just me.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
geoff - I was waiting for that moronic claim about 2,717 MRAPs. The story is fake. There is zero evidence for it.
Do you ever tire of being wrong?
Mindless? Me?
And we're aiming to restrict gun ownership to non-child murderers. You have a problem with that?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Tell Forbes it's a fake.
You're doing whatever it takes to restrict gun ownership by all Americans, not just the child murderers. Otherwise, you'd be going after the child murderers, and not the guns.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
geofrf - Navistar got an $884 million contract in 2011 to upgrade 2,717 (look familiar?) MRAPs for the Marine Corps. End of story.
If you choose to believe hoaxes, that's your prerogative. Reality is my choice.
91% of Americans approve of universal background checks before purchasing a gun. How abut you?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
No! And your 91% is a bogus figure. My background check has already been performed for permitting. That should be the one and only time. Again, if you care about gun crimes, go after the criminals. But we know that's not what you're after.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
geoff - Washington Post-ABC News poll - 91% all adults, 95% Dems, 87% Republicans (!), 91% Independents, say 'support' when asked, ""Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?"
How's that MRAP story doing? Got any facts yet? I assume you know that Forbes had nothing to do with that story. It was some knuckle-headed commenter on their site. You do know the difference, don't you? Can you do better?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
That is different than Universal background checks which I believe would alert the feds to every gun purchased.One time background checks on purchases at gun shows is something else altogether, and I don't have a problem with that.
And I will try to do better.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
By the way, these folks did a report on all of those bullets:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/
Might be worth a look see.
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/11/cincinnati-poll-worker-charged-with-voting-half-dozen-times-in-november/
Jim(s), DR, et al what is your take on this?
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
fugitiveguy - Photo ID would not have prevented it.
There was a case in Clackamas County Oregon where a poll worker was arrested for changing votes to Republicans on some number of ballots. Ballot security is an important function.
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
"fugitiveguy - Photo ID would not have prevented it."
Curious as to how you can immediately state that as if it is absolute fact. What do you think should happen to this "veteran poll worker"? Also, isnt it sort of odd that apparently not one of the major outlets except Fox finds this newsworthy? At least when I google searched it it appeared that way.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
fugitveguy - The tell me how photo ID would have prevented it. It's a simple question. Keep in mind that the bogus votes were by absentee ballot. It'll be quite a trick to invoke photo ID on that.
Crimes happen every day and many don't make the national news. As it happened, the sources I read had the story, so it was no surprise.
There have been a number of voting related arrests lately. One was an elderly lady (80+ years) with dementia who forgot that she'd mailed in an absentee ballot a month earlier and showed up at the polls to vote. The poll workers could have told her that her absentee ballot had been received (it was in their computer) but they let her vote and had her arrested instead. Nice. She'll think twice about voting next time and isn't that the point?
But the majority of the cases I've seen involve Republicans. Maybe you have better sources.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
The election committee of the NC General Assembly met today for a public hearing to discuss Voter ID. Hopefully we'll have voter ID laws soon in North Carolina.
JimHeim 2 months, 1 week ago
geoff - Maybe they'll come up with a good excuse for disenfranchising a quarter-million African-Americans. But I'm guessing not since that's a feature not a bug.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
They won't be disenfranchised if I can help it. I and the rest of those for ID laws will be happy to drive them to get the IDs and then on to the polls. The DNC has been busing them to the voting booth for years. Now, they'll have the proper credentials to vote.
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
"geoff - Maybe they'll come up with a good excuse for disenfranchising a quarter-million African-Americans."
I remember Al Gore moaning about the millions of blacks disenfranchised back in 2000 I think. Yet when it came down to it, they couldn't produce a single case. This is no different.
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
JimHeim-- Your post about voter ID "disenfranchising a quarter-million African-Americans..." is interesting. First, where do you get your "quarter-million" number from? Second, how many of this "quarter-million" are unable to obtain a photo ID? Third, how many of this "quarter-million" buy alcohol and cigarettes? Lottery tickets? All of which should require an ID? Fourth, if it costs $10 (http://www.dmv.org/nc-north-carolina/id-cards.php) to get a photo ID, how will that affect their ability to purchase these things? Fifth, are there any "white" voters who would be disenfranchised in this regard? How many, and how? Please let us know. Cheers!
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
If guilty Jim, this women has disenfranchised as many as 8 other voters. How do you feel about that? Do you think she should get some jail time?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Come on, fellas! There's no such thing as voter fraud. Just ask Jim. She's innocent!
DannySteen 2 months, 1 week ago
What is it called when you consider someone too simple to be able to use an ID to vote?
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
The mind of an American liberal?
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
Sounds like racism to me.
fugitiveguy 2 months, 1 week ago
Of course its all a liberal crock of bleep. How the hell can anyone in this day and time live their life (rich, poor or anywhere in between) without photo ID? As we've known for a long time now, they could give a rats azz about detecting/preventing/stopping voter fraud. We all know why.
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Oooh! Liberals aren't racist...just ask them.
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
geoff and FG-- I asked JimHeim 5 questions. If he answers all 5, I will make another donation (this time in his name) of $100 to the American Cancer Society. If JimHeim refuses to answer, I'll make the donation in your names. And yes, this offer by its very terms is racist (just ask a liberal). Cheers!
geoffcutler 2 months, 1 week ago
Very noble for a racist. Thanks!
Thatcher 2 months, 1 week ago
geoff-- Don't make me mad, white boy. HA!! Cheers my friend!
skylinefirepest 2 months, 1 week ago
Heim, going back a ways I'll ask you a simple question...while I have nothing about preventing child killers from buying guns my question is "why don't you want me to have them....I'm a stone cold law abiding American citizen, one of "we the people", and I'm mentally competent ( I suppose ) and have no criminal record....so why don't you stinking liberals want me to own firearms??? The simple answer is that it's always about CONTROL, not necessarily keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. What happened after Katrina, Jimmy Heim??? The law went out, door to door, and bullied people into giving up their firearms, leaving them at the mercy of the looters and the criminal element. Really good show for you Dems, wasn't it? And you have the nerve to say that "it'll never happen". Bullhockey, Jimmy.