The only good thing that can be said, if it is a good thing I mean, is that the poll judges do not discriminate.

That law they are enforcing came down from "on high" so they are not free to disobey the law even though it is a horrid law.

The law should be stricken, but that does not solve the problem of gerrymandering, or solve the problem that U.S.eh? demockcrazy only provides psychopaths to chose from.

I'm glad he did this protest, and I'm glad they videotaped it. I honor and respect the former Marine for his service. I think it's great he was willing to give up his vote as a protest and on behalf of the many who have been or will be disenfranchised by these idiotic and undemocratic polling restrictions.

I just wish he hadn't yelled at the poor man who was working at the polls. This isn't his fault.

I'm a former Marine, 8 years active duty. It pisses me off when Devildogs use their time in the Marines to push their agenda. His actions and conduct toward the poll workers were not in keeping with the standards and traditions of professionalism of my beloved Corps.

Wow. Another contrived situation designed to mobilize the doltish.

Surely the Marines taught him a little something about honor and respect. He knows the law going in, has his ID, but refuses to show it to prove his point? And yelling at the poll worker?

Hopefully, someone is arranging some remedial Civics, common courtesy and common sense classes for Mr. Thompson.

Good find.

A "gun permit card with photo" is acceptable --- what does that say as to the political leanings of those whom the GOP wishes to permit to vote.'

Oh, and to Buzz, who lacks the bravery to post his or her real name in our comment section (and probably never served, let alone faced combat), please explain what honor there is in needlessly disenfranchising millions of Americans by photo ID laws that have nothing to do with preventing voter fraud.

This billionaire funded, GOP concocted exercise in the destruction of the right to vote is an absolute disgrace!

First, I thought there was no such thing as an ex-Marine.

Second, if any has room to tell a governor to saunter off to hell it's the military when they can't vote. That's not an agenda, that's American and good on him.

Ernest,

I guess it didn't sit well for me to point out your lies and woefully inept attempts at logic in the *Church & State* comments, aye? I can assure you, whether I use my full name or not, lies are still lies.

I registered for the draft, as required, in 1980. 'not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

But, on to something you must certainly detest.

How on earth is anyone disenfranchised by having to show a photo ID if they show up at the polls to vote?

Here's one.

http://www.cleveland.com...nty_veteran_86_turn.html

Buzz, I know you are new to this site so I'll cut you some slack and, for the moment, assume that you are simply uninformed rather than a lying right-wing propagandist.

Here are a couple of articles that may serve to answer you question as to how polling place photo ID laws serve to disenfranchise millions of Americans.

U.S. Senate Hearings on New GOP Voter Suppression Laws [Part 1 of 2] - Photo ID Restrictions and the Disastrous Return of Hans von Spakovsky

New Federal Lawsuit Provides U.S. DoJ Golden Opportunity to Challenge Polling Place Photo ID Restrictions Under Section 2 of Voting Rights Act

Assume away, Ernest! Fine by me.

Can't you just tell me? You know, like a conversation? I honestly don't think I can stomach more of your articles if they are as poorly written and filled with as many lies as the Church/State "Academic" paper.

I went to vote today. I showed my license. I voted. An elderly neighbor voted today. He has a free ID card from the state. Another elderly neighbor who wasn't interested in getting an ID, cast their ballot absentee.

Can you just tell me, in your own words, without ...sinister music...stories of the Koch Brothers, or any other whacky conspiracy theories, how it is that showing a photo ID is such an incredible burden?

Ernest,

Even after reading your "academic" paper on Church/State, I decided to attempt to get through another of your works. Unfortunately, the obligatory mention of the Koch Brothers (and of course, pointing out that they are billionaires) was in the first paragraph. I'm sorry, but I just can't force myself through another one of those sort of things.

Why don't we just have a conversation. You know, I ask a question, you answer it. No need for links to HuffPo (or worse). No pointers to *academic* papers. 'just a conversation. You ask, I answer. I ask, you answer. Yes, it's unconventional, but let's give it a try. Whadda ya say?

So, in your own words, without any wealth envy, without any more lies or distortions, how is someone disenfranchised by showing a photo ID?

Buzz asked disenguously @ 11:

Why don't we just have a conversation. You know, I ask a question, you answer it...how is someone disenfranchised by showing a photo ID?

You know, you're extraordinarily rude, Buzz. Ernie has given you links, with actual evidence in response to your disingenuous question, and you not only do have the courtesy to read them, you hurl insults at the same time.

Furthermore, the article you are responding to (which I'm guessing you failed to read as well), also offers an answer to your question. The story of 96-year old Dorothy Cooper and the story of 93-year old Thelma Mitchell in TN have been ignored by you.

Then there's 84-year old Ruthelle Frank in WI. The previously legal voters who were disenfranchised last week in WI. The scores of voters who have filed a lawsuit, detailing how they are now disenfranchised in WI as well.

Then there are the nuns and students disenfranchised in IN in 2008. Shall I go on? I would, but you'll not bother to read them, because you clearly you don't actually give a shit. If you did, you would know the answer to your disingenuous question already.

So, "how is someone disenfranchised by showing a photo ID?" If they have one to show, obviously, they are not (presuming they remember to bring it, and a tornado hasn't wiped out their house the day before.) If they don't have it, however, like 21 million Americans, it's a different story. But, again, it's a story that clearly you don't give a shit about it, as you clearly don't give a shit about democracy. If you did, you'd be fighting like hell, like the former Marine in the story above, to make sure everyone is allowed to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

But you won't. Because you clearly don't give a damn about democracy and the values of this nation. And that's pathetic.

First of all, we don't have a democracy. The Founding Fathers were very clear that that was NOT what they had in mind. A cursory read of our founding documents or any of the FF writings reveal that.

Secondly, there is no *right to vote* in a national election.

And the word is disingenuously, not disenguously.

So, since you obviously like to play fast and loose with the truth, why don't we just converse without links to other meaningless items?

Best I can tell, every state has provisional ways to vote. And you know the old adage...ignorance of the law... The contrived story of the rude Marine is meaningless. The guy had his ID. While I suppose it was brilliant to some, it's really more a testimony to what sort of a jerk he is.

So, I think you guys have referred to what, 21 million people without photo IDs? How many have availed themselves to the free ones offered by their states? How many have bothered to send in an absentee ballot? How many have even bothered to educate themselves as to what is required and what other options they have?

Without knowing how many people actually can not vote due to the straight-forward, common sense laws, it's kinda hard to know if or how big a problem we have. And, I can tell that you level headed people here would never want to go off half cocked or without complete, accurate information, right?

Anyone who wants to vote and who is legally entitled to, should be able to vote. If there are instances where an elderly person here, a group of nuns there can't, that should be addressed. In the case of the nuns, it sounds like they simply weren't aware of the laws. Absentee ballots would work for them, no?

There will always be *issues* with voting. a few years ago, it was hanging chads. Then it was some ballots in a box that was unopened. It's going to happen. It should be minimized, for sure.

Are you aware of any studies that show that of the people who do not have picture IDs, how many are not afforded another mechanism to vote?

Ernie said; "Millions of voters are going to be disenfranchised".

"For proof.. I will supply you two links to a far left website... where you can read left wing propaganda.... which I wrote."

In other words, Ernie is right because he says so.

Buzz,

I'm going to guess that by explaining we don't live in a democracy, you mean we live in a republic. I gather that's a long-time John Birch Society obsession. That's fine... you're right, we are not a direct democracy. We do get to vote for our representatives, though.

As for there being no right to vote in a national election, could you explain that one a bit more? I've never heard anyone say that before, and I'm not clear on what you mean. Do you view voting as a privilege that can be taken away from non-felons?

I'm also wondering if you feel laws that impose burdens (burdens you consider minor) are OK with you if they have a political impact but don't address a real problem. I ask that because repeated investigations have turned up no evidence of a real voter fraud problem. The political impact of imposing this particular burden is clear, though, just as the political impacts of literacy tests were clear in earlier years.

Epiphany Alert:

At first, like Brad and everybody else, I saw this ALEC/GOP attack against voting as a BAD thing. After all, disenfranchising five or ten million low-to-mid class Americans can only help the Rethuglicans and can't be good for Democracy (with a big D).

But, now I see a positive side to this IF we choose to take it...

Voter registration programs have been killed in their tracks by GOP-sponsored legislation that has frightened away many organizations including the League of Women Voters that had done it for years.

BUT "Get Your Photo ID so you can vote" programs would not be subject to those laws. Once people have their ID, you can figure that THEY will figure out how to get registered. And they will remember, who it was who helped them get their ID.

The DSCC and DCCC and all the other organizations should be ALL OVER this.

Let's make this the Summer of the Photo ID!!!!

Let's turn the Rethuglicans plan to stop people from voting into the biggest voter recruitment program in history and have overall voter turnout INCREASE in 2012.

Buzz continued to unimpress @ 12 with:

why don't we just converse without links to other meaningless items?

By "meaningless items", you mean actual evidence to back up our claims, so that you don't have to trust me and I don't have to trust you? Ya know, cites to independently verifiable facts and stuff? Is that the "meaningless items" you're referring to? Really??

Best I can tell, every state has provisional ways to vote.

"Best [you] can tell"? You're not too familiar with our electoral system, are ya? Yes, anyone can vote provisionally in any state. Getting that vote counted, however, is a different matter. And without a Photo ID in most of the state's that have passed those restrictions, your provisional vote will not be counted, unless you can come up with the money and/or resources to obtain the state-issued Photo ID you couldn't before Election Day anyway.

I know you don't like links and facts and stuff, but here's one that walks you through how easy it is to get your vote counted if you don't have a state-issued Photo ID on Election Day in Indiana. Hurry up and don't bother to read it right away, son.

So, I think you guys have referred to what, 21 million people without photo IDs? How many have availed themselves to the free ones offered by their states? How many have bothered to send in an absentee ballot? How many have even bothered to educate themselves as to what is required and what other options they have?

So, just curious. Let's say there is 220,000 legally registered voters who will not be able to vote unless they manage the hurdles (and can afford them) to get their "free" ID in Wisconsin, as discussed by the judge who put that state's law on hold today, finding it unconstitutional. Let's now say that a huge majority of them manage to jump those hurdles. How many legal voters are you cool with disenfranchising? 20,000? 1,000? How many of them are just fine with seeing their constitutional right to vote taken away from them before you'd have any concern about their liberty and loss of rights?

I can tell that you level headed people here would never want to go off half cocked or without complete, accurate information, right?

Actually, both Ernie and I have been level-headed enough to offer you actual, complete, accurate information, studies, legal findings and factual cases. You are too lazy, apparently, to bother to educate yourself with them. Right?

You, in the meantime, have provided not a single fact to this discussion. I can't imagine why.

Are you aware of any studies that show that of the people who do not have picture IDs, how many are not afforded another mechanism to vote?

If I did, would you bother to read it?

WingnutSteve @ 14 also whiffed with:

"For proof.. I will supply you two links to a far left website... where you can read left wing propaganda.... which I wrote."

In other words, Ernie is right because he says so.

No, Ernie is right because he has directed you to articles which include independently verifiable facts, so that you don't need to trust a word that Ernie says.

And, what have you provided to rebut those independently verifiable facts? Oh, that's right. Like your kinfolk Buzz --- and like the legislative and legal proponents of these bills --absolutely nothing.

I wonder why.

Charlie L @ 16:

Wow. Talking about making lemonade outta lemons! Good luck with that! You're gonna have to do alotta squeezing!

Mitch,

Now that's truly weird. You admit that no, we don't live in a democracy (and you're right), but when I say it, it's because of "long-time John Birch Society obsession"? Wow. Just wow.

Voting in a national election IS a privilege. It is not I that asserts that it is a RIGHT, so perhaps you should point me to where you find that it IS a right. Our rights are clearly spelled out for us. The right to vote in a national election is simply not there. But, if you can find it, I'm all ears.

Your question about laws that impose a burden is a little odd. Yesterday, I had to fill out my name and address in order to vote. Is that not a burden? I had to wait while they checked the voter registration logs to see that I was registered. Was that not a burden? Several years ago, due to some sort of glitch, I was not even listed on the voter registration rolls. Boy, was I ever burdened by that.

Living in a (somewhat) free country requires some level of effort and some self-education as to what is required. If someone shows up once every 4 years and is shocked that the requirements have changed since the last time they voted, shame on them.

I'm traveling for the next few days, but I look forward to continuing...

brad:

"Best [you] can tell"? You're not too familiar with our electoral system, are ya?

I don't claim to know the laws of each and every state. MY state offers a free Voter ID card, absentee voting, etc.

So, just curious. Let's say there is 220,000 legally registered voters who will not be able to vote unless they manage the hurdles (and can afford them) to get their "free" ID in Wisconsin, as discussed by the judge who put that state's law on hold today, finding it unconstitutional. Let's now say that a huge majority of them manage to jump those hurdles. How many legal voters are you cool with disenfranchising? 20,000? 1,000? How many of them are just fine with seeing their constitutional right to vote taken away from them before you'd have any concern about their liberty and loss of rights?

I've already made it clear that I feel that no one who is qualified to vote should not be able to vote.

And again, there is no Constitutional right to vote, hence no loss of rights. Breathlessly saying it over and over, feigning shock at the loss of a non-existent right, is silly.

Actually, both Ernie and I have been level-headed enough to offer you actual, complete, accurate information, studies, legal findings and factual cases. You are too lazy, apparently, to bother to educate yourself with them. Right?

I pointed out several lies/distortions/misrepresentations in Ernest's "academic" paper on the Fluke thing. You continue to refer to non-existent rights as if they do exist and don't even know what form of government we have in this country. So, for you two to refer me to other things you have written as evidence of some sort of proof is kind of silly, no?

Are you aware of any studies that show that of the people who do not have picture IDs, how many are not afforded another mechanism to vote?

If I did, would you bother to read it?

Of course!

You state that 21 million people don't have photo IDs. I'll accept that number, but it's meaningless in an honest discussion about voting unless we know how many of those 21 million haven't been provided other mechanisms to vote, no?

Go to go catch a flight. The 49%, you know.

brad wrote to WingnutSteve:

Like your kinfolk Buzz ---

The jig is up, Steve. Brad has figured it out, brother.

Buzz,

Regarding democracy vs. republic, you should know who has been pushing your meme for the last few generations. Maybe you don't, which would explain your "wow". It's hard to see why so many people think it's a wise, relevant thing to say when it's often --- not always --- intended as a battle flag.

On to the more important topic, which is the imposition of burdens on voting. Yes, you had to fill out your name and address and wait while they checked to see if you were registered. We both understand why that was necessary and appropriate. Why is a photo ID requirement necessary and appropriate? What investigation has shown that there is a voter fraud issue at the polls? What efforts do these new poll laws require that the election staff be able to authenticate the IDs that are claimed to be vital? Oh, none. To me, that makes the purpose of the laws clear.

Seriously, spend a moment checking yourself if you are sincere.

Enjoy your flight.

Buzz @ 21 continue to blather foolishly:

I've already made it clear that I feel that no one who is qualified to vote should not be able to vote.

And yet you are supporting laws which make that the case. Of course, you feel that by letting them vote in a way that their vote won't be as equal as everybody elses, or may never get counted at all, that's okay. Sorry, it isn't. And I'm sorrier still that you appear not to have enough respect to read a single link I took the time to share with you here in my very patient replies to you.

And again, there is no Constitutional right to vote, hence no loss of rights. Breathlessly saying it over and over, feigning shock at the loss of a non-existent right, is silly.

Ya know what's even sillier? Shooting your mouth off about things you haven't a clue on. I was discussing Wisconsin with you, and gave you the link to yesterday's court decision. Clearly, you didn't bother to even look at it, or you'd have learned that the judge in WI put the law on hold, finding it unconstitional in violation of WI Constitional, Article III, Suffrage, which reads, in part:

There is more in their Constitution on this, but I don't believe you care.

As to the U.S. Constition, yes, there are certain protections there as well. Though the "right to vote" is not explicit, it is there in many different ways, including the Amendments which discuss voting age, suffrage and equal protection under the law.

But, again, you clearly don't care.

You continue to refer to non-existent rights as if they do exist and don't even know what form of government we have in this country.

If that were in any way true, I'd agree with you. But making a jackass of yourself here is clearly your goal. And, congrats! You are succeeding!

You state that 21 million people don't have photo IDs. I'll accept that number, but it's meaningless in an honest discussion about voting unless we know how many of those 21 million haven't been provided other mechanisms to vote, no?

No. Because that's already on record in numerous legal findings in both courts and from the DoJ, etc.

But, again, you don't give a shit. If you ever care about protecting your nation's Constititonally Representative Democracy, let me know. Until then, see ya.

COMMENT #8
@ Rick H.

Well if the veteran was to vote in TN, he would have been able to vote.
TN accepts ANY federal or State issued ID. even if it were to be expired. So the expired Drivers license, or the VA card would have worked. If someone was to have just moved from another state (of course it would have had to have been 30 days before the election) and didn't have a TN Drivers license the License from the other state would have been acceptable even if it was expired. Even if a person for what ever reason is unable to pay for items necessary to receive a state issued ID then they could sign an affidavit stating that they can't afford a state issued ID and still be able to vote with a regular ballot. The only people that would have to vote with a provisional ballot would be someone that had registered, but for some reason is not on the poll lists, or someone that "forgot" or lost their ID, but they would have to show up at the election commission within 2 days with it.

The guy in this story was not turned away as the title says, he refuses to vote and leaves. He could have voted a provisional ballot. But I do not think it would have mattered that much because the only person on the Democratic ballot was Obama. Unless he was to vote on the Republican ballot to possibly vote for someone that they think that Obama will beat....(some that came in told me that is what they were doing)

Brad: I've given up on trying to have anything resuming reasonable discourse with the scarcely literate Buzz, just as I long ago gave up on WingNut Steve, who previously admitted to posting information at this site that he knew to be untrue simply to bait me.

Like most of Limbaugh's "ditto heads," Buzz has surrendered his ability for independent thought. He has no interest in reading the verifiable information contained in the articles you and I linked to or even to read the content of this article.

Buzz's head is tightly wrapped within the right-wing echo chamber's disinformation bubble. It is impervious to all evidence that does not square with the worldview he (or she) has come to expect.

One point about the usual right-wing blather about the U.S. being a Republic and not a Democracy is worthy of comment. In truth it is both:

As observed by Wikipedia [emphasis added]:

The right to vote was enshrined in the 15th amendment, and in "United States v. Cruikshank (1875), the court ruled that the 'equal rights of citizens' were inherent to the idea of republic."

But, of course, propagandists in the right-wing echo chamber don't bother to inform their deluded followers of these little details when they convince the useful idiots that the U.S. is a Republic, not a Democracy so, according to the propagandists, that somehow makes their effort at voter suppression okay!

Interesting back and forth, Brad, Ernest and Buzzed 'Lightyear'. With due respect Ernest, the United States is a 'constitutional republic', not, I repeat, not a democracy. Democracy was tried in ancient Greece, and was overthrown by an oligarchy; democracy doesn't work. Only a representative constitutional republic can work for all the citizens of any country.

By the way, this constitutional republic has been overthrown by an oligarchy, because of deception and control of the news sources by the oligarchs.

Critics of such restrictions have documented how minorities, the elderly and students ––- all who tend to vote disproportionately for Democratic candidates ––- are far more likely than the general population to lack the ID required under such laws and to be disenfranchised in the bargain.

Yet nary a peep by the same folks for the photo ID requirements established by the (D)'s to exercise their rights as enumerated under the 2nd Amendment. Curious that.

If a "gun permit card with photo" indicates the "political leanings of those whom the GOP wishes to permit to vote" then what does the photo ID requirement to buy firearms say about the (D)'s, except what class of people they don't want owning guns? Maybe the (D)'s of today are closer to their Klan roots than they wish to admit.

And as for the GOP being the "party of billionaires" consider the following list of (D) donors that meet that criteria:
Bill and Melinda Gates, George Soros, Warren Buffett, Eli Broad, John Doerr, Gerry Lenfest,
John Morgridge, Paul Allen, Laura and John Arnold,
Michael Bloomberg, Michele Chan, Barry Diller, Ted Turner, Tim Gill, George Kaiser, Haim Saban, Fred Eychaner, Stephen Bing, Steven Kirsch, Bernard Schwartz and Jon Corzine.

Glad the Democrats have stayed true to their "working class roots".

Democrats and Klan roots? You have to be shitting me. where the f-k do you live? In East Jahunga?

Limburger has more of what you crave.

Ernest,

I hope it's ok for me to respond to your *academic* posting to Brad about me. 'just wondering, if you want to talk to Brad ABOUT me, would that not be better suited for an e-mail? Or better yet, if you want to talk about me, perhaps you could muster the courage to address your thoughts about me, to me. I don't allow my daughters to behave like you... but, they're 12 and 15...and mature... with spines... and the intelligence to know that we don't live in a democracy. Oh forget it. I guess it was unfair to bring them up.

I'm sorry that you apparently don't like facts, or rather, prefer to twist facts into things that aren't facts, but we live in a Constitutional Republic. It's that simple.

To claim that it is both a Republic AND a democracy is just silly. I realize that the Constitutional part, the part that limits the powers of the government, is probably not very appealing to you, but great care was taken to ensure that that's the sort of government we have.

If we were a democracy, we wouldn't be dealing with all of the ill-effects of obamacare, given that a majority didn't want it. Right?

The 15th amendment simply does NOT *enshrine* the right to vote. It merely lays out items that can't be used to deny a vote.

Think of it like this: I can tell you that I won't keep you from picking my pocket because you are goofy, or because your hands are too feminine or because you have bad breath.

That does NOT guarantee you the right to pick my pocket though.

Yes, Buzz. Attempting to use personal attacks and hide behind absurdist etymology (I guess office holders across the land would be stunned to learn that they were not elected by a democratic system) rather than, ya know, even attempting to answer to any of the questions and responses offered to your ill-informed screeds here is much easier.

If I were you, and had such a lack of facts to support my silly and offensive case in favor of voter suppression, and had made such a jackass outta myself challenging Wisconsin voters' Constitutional right to vote by charging they didn't have one, I'd try to avoid all of those issues as well. Well done, chief!

We're all very impressed!

Democrats and Klan roots? You have to be shitting me.

LOL. The various incarnations of the KKK have all supported or been comprised by a majority of poorer white democrats in the south. I have confirmation of this from a close family friend who grew up in Kentucky in the 40's.

Google the 1924 Democratic National Convention.

Look at the votes by party for and against the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

Read A Short History of Reconstruction by Dr. Eric Foner, or

Ever heard of Wikipedia?

In the South, however, the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party.

Even if you don't trust the unreferenced portions, there are referenced sources available, like this one:

Klan violence worked to suppress black voting. More than 2,000 persons were killed, wounded and otherwise injured in Louisiana within a few weeks prior to the Presidential election of November 1868. Although St. Landry Parish had a registered Republican majority of 1,071, after the murders, no Republicans voted in the fall elections. White Democrats cast the full vote of the parish for Grant's opponent. The KKK killed and wounded more than 200 black Republicans, hunting and chasing them through the woods. Thirteen captives were taken from jail and shot; a half-buried pile of 25 bodies was found in the woods. The KKK made people vote Democratic and gave them certificates of the fact.
Source: W.E.B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America: 1860–1880, New York: Oxford University Press, 1935; reprint, The Free Press, 1998, pp.680–681.

Those that cannot remember the past will be condemned to repeat it - George Santayana

You have to be shitting me. where the f-k do you live? In East Jahunga?

What or where is "East Jahunga"? A quick Google shows it to be the equivalent of "BFE", or implying the boonies.

I live in a major metropolitan area, in a town that is very mixed in its demographics and work in a community that is predominantly black that I also lived in for over 10 years.

I'm sorry if I don't fit your stereotype of a rural hick spewing vitriol from a shack I occupy with my wife/sister simply for presenting an opinion that doesn't conform.

For what it's worth I suppose my college professors are still wringing their hands that I didn't follow their lead towards the left as I made my way through their ivory towers of academia. I suppose having to work at a real (non-school) job to pay my own tuition instead of accruing massive debt I could later try to blame someone else for may have skewed my weltanschauung from the "norm" for many my age.

brad:

Yes, Buzz. Attempting to use personal attacks and hide behind absurdist etymology (I guess office holders across the land would be stunned to learn that they were not elected by a democratic system) rather than, ya know, even attempting to answer to any of the questions and responses offered to your ill-informed screeds here is much easier.

Oh my. This is much worse than I thought. Do you really not understand that people can vote in a Constitutional Republic? Really? That is just hilarious!

People vote in Russia. Do you think they live in a democracy, too? GO BRAD!!!

If I were you, and had such a lack of facts to support my silly and offensive case in favor of voter suppression, and had made such a jackass outta myself challenging Wisconsin voters' Constitutional right to vote by charging they didn't have one, I'd try to avoid all of those issues as well. Well done, chief!

Why all the hysteria? I haven't supported voter suppression. I didn't challenge anyone's vote, just pointed out that there is not a Constitutional Right to one. I also stated that I don't believe that anyone who is legally eligible to vote should be prevented from voting. Do you not comprehend very well?

You're quite hyper-sensitive, aye?

Brad/Earnest,

Here's a link that you may find interesting.

http://www.fairvote.org/...e-amendment#.T1qTd-zhfJt

The psuedonymous Buzz @ 33:

You can't even imagine how bored I am with your pointless and stupid and distracting syntactical pissing contest. So we'll move on to issues that actually matter in this discussion.

You said:

Why all the hysteria? I haven't supported voter suppression

Really? You serve as a daft apologist for voter suppression laws by asking and asserting things like...

• "How on earth is anyone disenfranchised by having to show a photo ID if they show up at the polls to vote?"
• "Can you just tell me ... how it is that showing a photo ID is such an incredible burden?"
• "Best I can tell, every state has provisional ways to vote. And you know the old adage...ignorance of the law..."
• "I think you guys have referred to what, 21 million people without photo IDs? ... How many have even bothered to educate themselves as to what is required and what other options they have?"
• "Without knowing how many people actually can not vote due to the straight-forward, common sense laws..."

...and then have the temerity to suggest you are not supporting voter suppression? Really?

Are you always this disingenuous? Or only in blog comments when you run out of ways to support you're unsupportable rhetoric??

Then, in @34, you point us to FairVote's call for a specific Constitutional Amendment that would assert, in no uncertain terms, a Right to Vote directly stated in the Constitution itself.

Did you even bother to read that page? Or just pointed to it with as little knowledge as you embarrassingly showed when responding to my point about Wisconsin's voter suppression law being put on hold by the court after it was found to be unconstitutional this week? (A point, I notice, you have failed to even acknowledge getting entirely wrong. Along with your failure to offer the simple courtesy of answering the questions I asked you, given that we have tried to answer to virtually every one of yours.)

The page you linked to calls for a Right to Vote Amendment to the Constitution. As they write:

Now, do you understand enough about Constitutional law to understand that while certain rights are not explicitly stated via a Constitutional Amendment, they are guaranteed nonetheless? Do you understand Equal Protection under the law as guaranteed in the Constitution, and the other Amendments cited above? Do you understand the 9th Amendment notes "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"? Do you understand that the courts across the land, all the way up to the Supreme Court have asserted, over and again, the right of people to vote in our elections?

Do you understand if you had bothered to read even one of the many links that Ernie and I have courteously offered you, you might have found links to court decisions that underscored that right again and again?

Apparently not, given your idiotic and unsupportable arguments here, such as this gem from earlier in the thread:

Voting in a national election IS a privilege.

And that scholarly assertion is supported by what court decision? When? Where?

The most amazing thing here: You are, apparently, not ashamed to be wrong over and over and over again in the very same thread. I suppose when you are writing pseudonymously, it's an easy cowards game to be so consistently wrong, particularly when you're trying to outwit folks like Ernie and myself who actually put our real names on every comment we make in response to your asinine hooey.

Tango @ 28 said:

Yet nary a peep by the same folks for the photo ID requirements established by the (D)'s to exercise their rights as enumerated under the 2nd Amendment. Curious that.

Is it? Are you saying that folks lose their right to ever get a gun for lack of a photo ID? And you're saying that's a "D" law, but the Rs, when they controlled every branch of government didn't bother to change it? Really?

You do understand the difference between losing a right that exists for only one day, and is then lost forever (the right to vote), versus laws that "well regulate...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," right?

Perhaps not.

If a "gun permit card with photo" indicates the "political leanings of those whom the GOP wishes to permit to vote" then what does the photo ID requirement to buy firearms say about the (D)'s, except what class of people they don't want owning guns?

And as for the GOP being the "party of billionaires" consider the following list of (D) donors that meet that criteria:
Bill and Melinda Gates...[etc]

Silly argument. Those who you named are not supporting laws to make life easier/better for them. Most have called, for example, for their own taxes to be increased. That is a strict distinction from, say, the Republican Koch Brothers who put millions into the cause of receiving even more tax breaks for themselves and their rich friends.

Glad the Democrats have stayed true to their "working class roots".

Who here ever said they were doing that? Welcome to The BRAD BLOG.

Is it? Are you saying that folks lose their right to ever get a gun for lack of a photo ID? And you're saying that's a "D" law

I'm saying that they lost the right to purchase a firearms from a licensed dealer as a result of a federal law sponsored and passed by Democrats. Most states (if not all) require some form of photo ID to be presented even for private sales as a result of that law.

but the Rs, when they controlled every branch of government didn't bother to change it?

As far as the (R)'s repealing any of the measures? You know as well as I do that the media
would have had a field day making chicken-little-esque predictions of busloads of nuns and orphans being slaughtered if they had so much as suggested something as minor as making the current age to vote coincide the age to own a handgun (which was the criteria used when the '68 Gun Control Act was passed).

Really?

As a political observer, the (D)'s could ask the same question about why their party hesitated to make more sweeping changes when President Obama was elected and had a majority in both houses.

You do understand the difference between losing a right that exists for only one day, and is then lost forever (the right to vote), versus laws that "well regulate...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," right?

Nice attempt to dismiss me as intellectually incapable. While I appreciate the subtlety with
which you did it, I still recognize it. Let's review:

a right that exists for only one day, and is then lost forever

Forever? Really? I didn't know that we only had elections once in each of our lifetimes.

I would counter the purported loss with the case of the honest voter who actually resides at their listed address and is the person who actually casts the ballot being robbed by a chance to influence the government that effects them where they live by those who fraudulently and intentionally participate in the process to effect their version of "change".

See Coleman v. Franken and the issues of there being more ballots than registered voters, the discovery of "mystery ballots" despite 100% of preceincts having been counted as well as more voters for Franken than Obama in many (typically rural) districs.

As far as the theft of an election goes, it doesn't matter if they are (D)'s, (R)'s or (I)'s to me. It's criminal and should be punished to the fullest extent, including the denial of military absentee ballots.

laws that "well regulate...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"

The Amendment doesn't say that the right shall be well regulated as your offering suggests.
It says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Despite years of propaganda attempting to convince the ill informed that somehow the 2nd was the only enumerated right that wasn't individual in nature, the Supreme Court found differently.

I would ask how these would-be voters comply with banking rules that require photo ID? Cashing checks? What about purchasing liquor or cigarettes?

As far as the concept of supposed intentional "disenfranchisement", May I offer the following publicized offer from the State of TN? http://www.tn.gov/safety/photoids.shtml

•If you are a registered voter and do not have a government-issued photo ID, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security will provide you with a photo ID at no charge. Citizens may obtain these IDs at 48 of the Driver Service Centers across the state. (The only center where IDs are not available is the Driver License Reinstatement Center on Murfreesboro Road in Davidson County.)
•From November 2011 through March 2012, Driver Service Centers in 15 counties will be open from 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on the first Saturday of each month for voter photo IDs only. No other business will be conducted during these special hours of service...

Seems like they're going the extra mile to do what they can to un-disenfranchise as many people as possible.

Silly argument.

Really? It's a comparison of criteria to exercise our rights.

Please explain why a photo ID is so critically needed to exercise one right but is an undue burden to exercise another.

Those who you named are not supporting laws to make life easier/better for them

Please don't naively suggest a group to be heartless despoilers or wonderfully noble humanitarians based solely on the (D) or (R) after their own or their intended recipient's names. The folks making those contributions are seeking to reap their rewards, just as the folks donating to the (R)'s seek to.

I'm not saying that's different - just identifying the hypocrisy of the (D)'s pointing
fingers at the billionaires donating to the other side of the aisle while steadfastly refusing to publicly acknowledge the fatcats leaving bags of money at their own doorsteps(and in their own ranks).

Most have called, for example, for their own taxes to be increased.

Not exactly. Most have called for the income taxes on the rich to be increased, but have never mentioned taxation on actual wealth. There is a distinct difference. Much like Senators Kerry and Edwards called for a similar increase, all the while utilizing the breaks in taxes provided by taking their monies as "dividends" rather than the more highly taxed "income" - an option not available to much of the population.

I would also ask how many of them have willingly made a voluntary contribution to the US Treasury to reduce the public debt? They do accept donations. If paying more in taxes is inherently noble, then why do they only offer to do it under compulsion? Why not lead by example?

The great men and women of history acted in the manner they viewed as right often in the face of what was acceptable to society at the time, and often with the threat of official sanction for acting on those beliefs. They did it because they knew in the heart of hearts it was the right - correct - thing to do.

What kind of person is it that will only act in an honorable fashion under threat, or only if everybody else is compelled as well? What does it say about the validity of their honor or the rightness of the idea they espouse?

Who here ever said they were doing that? Welcome to The BRAD BLOG.

Semms I may have more in common with some here than I first thought.

While having a different viewpont than many here on a number of issues, I do respect the idea of a person being a valid individual without a government issued ID. Sadly, it seems there are many who have used the good natured-ness of a society to achieve their political goals through misinformation, treachery and guile, and at the expense of the legitimate voters and the faith in (and function of) the system itself.

Sadly it's not new. Folks here would joke about the voters registered to 4001 N. Clark, 5800 N. Ravenswood and 1035 East 67th Streets* in the City of Chicago even before the Nixon-Kennedy race in 1960.

(*Graceland, Rosehill and Oak Woods Cemeteries)

The photo ID legislation is a response to those abuses. It's not perfect, but it's a step. I only hope that they work more effectively to prevent recurrences of the violations of the past than the laws passed against guns that only disarmed the law abiding and enabled the criminals to flourish.

Oh. Heavens. Okay. Here we go. Jesus, this gets exhausting. I'll do my best to keep it short and only respond to the most egregious.

Tango @ 37 said:

I'm saying that they lost the right to purchase a firearms from a licensed dealer as a result of a federal law sponsored and passed by Democrats.

Please let me know what law you're referring to, so I can try to respond to it accurately. I'm unfamiliar with the law. What is it? Who signed it? Thanks!

As a political observer, the (D)'s could ask the same question about why their party hesitated to make more sweeping changes when President Obama was elected and had a majority in both houses.

We're not talking about Ds here. Nor is anybody defending them for what they did or didn't do. It's not a part of this discussion. So not even sure why you offer that "defense".

a right that exists for only one day, and is then lost forever

Forever? Really? I didn't know that we only had elections once in each of our lifetimes.

If you lose your vote on Election Day, you can never get that vote back. Unlike an unsuccessful attempt to buy a guy today, which can be rectified tomorrow. I note you added a wink to that comment, so I'm hoping you were just kidding with that response.

I would counter the purported loss with the case of the honest voter who actually resides at their listed address and is the person who actually casts the ballot being robbed by a chance to influence the government that effects them where they live by those who fraudulently and intentionally participate in the process to effect their version of "change".

No clue what that refers to. Would you like to try again and be a bit less cryptic?

See Coleman v. Franken and the issues of there being more ballots than registered voters

Where?

the discovery of "mystery ballots" despite 100% of preceincts having been counted as well as more voters for Franken than Obama in many (typically rural) districs.

Where?

I'll need a cite to back up that charge. I'm unfamiliar with either of those charges and so, apparently, is the Republican Party who didn't charge any such thing in their months long contest and trial of the election.

As far as the theft of an election goes, it doesn't matter if they are (D)'s, (R)'s or (I)'s to me. It's criminal and should be punished to the fullest extent, including the denial of military absentee ballots.

Concurred.

I would ask how these would-be voters comply with banking rules that require photo ID? Cashing checks? What about purchasing liquor or cigarettes?

While the privilege of casing a check may require a Photo ID, the other things you mentioned do not. I buy liquor and cigarettes all the time and can't remember the last time anybody has required me to present a Photo ID while doing so. Not to mention that those things are PRIVILEGES unlike voting, which is a RIGHT. So, with all due respect: fail.

As far as the concept of supposed intentional "disenfranchisement", May I offer the following publicized offer from the State of TN? http://www.tn.gov/safety/photoids.shtml

•If you are a registered voter and do not have a government-issued photo ID, the Department of Safety and Homeland Security will provide you with a photo ID at no charge. Citizens may obtain these IDs at 48 of the Driver Service Centers across the state. (The only center where IDs are not available is the Driver License Reinstatement Center on Murfreesboro Road in Davidson County.)
•From November 2011 through March 2012, Driver Service Centers in 15 counties will be open from 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on the first Saturday of each month for voter photo IDs only. No other business will be conducted during these special hours of service...

You may offer whatever you like. How did that supposedly "free" ID work for Tennessee's 96-year old Dorothy Cooper? Surely you're familiar with her story. But if not, there's a link. If you need more, from Tennessee or elsewhere, just let me know.

Please explain why a photo ID is so critically needed to exercise one right but is an undue burden to exercise another.

First, as I said above, I'm unfamiliar with the law you keep citing. Please cite it. Second, you do not lose your "well regulated" right to own a gun if you have to come back tomorrow with additional paper work. You will, however, lose your right to vote in today's Election forever, if you are not allowed to vote today. This seems pretty elemental. And while I appreciate you're trying and trying like hell to justify these voter suppression laws, might I suggest you may wish to come up with a better analogy, because your 2nd Amendment one doesn't seem to be working for ya, here.

I would also ask how many of them have willingly made a voluntary contribution to the US Treasury to reduce the public debt?

Dumb argument. (Though one I appreciate Rush et al enjoy misleading with all the time.) It's about fairness and common sense. Not about their own personal need to "reduce the public debt".

Sadly, it seems there are many who have used the good natured-ness of a society to achieve their political goals through misinformation, treachery and guile, and at the expense of the legitimate voters and the faith in (and function of) the system itself.

[Nixon-Kennedy race blah, blah]

The photo ID legislation is a response to those abuses.

Really? How does it respond to those 50 year old alleged abuses? What is alleged to have happened in the Nixon-Kennedy race (in Chicago for Kennedy and in Hawaii for Nixon), is insider ballot box stuffing. Polling place Photo ID restrictions have no effect on insider fraud.

So what "abuse" is polling place Photo ID meant to respond to? If you have any such abuses, I'm quite sure the proponents of all of the bills around the country would love hearing it, since they themselves have been able to come up with none, to date. So get Googling and perform that important public service, amigo! The vote suppressors are counting on ya!

Hey Brad,

How does one go about getting a *Guest Blog* posted like Ernest?

Surely, at this **Fiercely Independent** (wink, wink) site, something as important as the debt cliff we're heading for is worthy of a posting, no?

In February, the Federal Government ran a deficit of $229,000,000,000.00, the largest monthly deficit in history. It's also well over 1,000 days since the Harry Reid led Senate has even passed a budget.

Will you help a brother out and get the topic started? With obama's spending and the deficits being one of the voters' top concerns, isn't it a worthy topic?

Thanks,

Buzz

Hey, Buzz, you do know that George W. Bush was the largest deficit spender in U.S. history and that one of his first acts was to squander the Clinton surplus by pushing through tax cuts that almost exclusively benefited the top one percent, don't you?

The problem with the GOP and most corporate Democrats is that they never met a weapons system or war they didn't like.

I'm all for deficit reduction that entails elimination of the billions for oil industry subsidies, a war in Iraq that Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize winning economist estimated cost us $3 trillion, the $2 billion/day we are currently squandering in Afghanistan, and the trillions squandered over the years on a phony war on drugs and more than 757 military bases spread across the globe to make the world safe for the corporate Empire.

While we're on the topic of deficit reduction, perhaps we can close the gap by eliminating the circumstance in which a Mitt Romney can make nearly $25 million in one year, and pay 13.9% in taxes. Restore the top tax bracket for all incomes over $1 million to the level it was during the Republican administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower --- 91%!

Now, since you want to talk about this from GOP vs. Democratic divide, perhaps you can share your "economic expertise" by providing us with an estimate of how much the insanity of a war with Iran --- which all GOP candidates, except Ron Paul, are pushing for --- would cost us.

Thanks,

Ernie

So, Ernest, I guess you accidentally forgot to answer the question I posed to Brad. How does one go about getting a topic started on this fiercely independent site?

"I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Thank you!

Buzz

Brad: Tango has not and cannot furnish you with links for the contentions he made about Coleman v. Franken because his posts are short on facts and long on right-wing myths.

As you may recall, we covered Coleman's election contest in great detail here, here, here, here & here.

Over the course of the protracted litigation team Coleman never established, as fact, any of the allegations Tango makes.

What occurred was that when the paper ballots were counted for the first time by human eyes, in front of all parties, they revealed that the numbers that were originally "reported" by the machines were not accurate; that Franken won and Coleman lost!

That's the reality, Tango. Deal with it!

"Fiercely independent," Buzz, does not equal publishing uninformed, fact-free articles, irrespective of whether they come from the Right or the Left.

As Brad observed @35, your comments have amounted a "pointless and stupid and distracting syntactical pissing contest." You lack the courage to post under your real name.

And after all that, you have the chutzpa to ask that you be elevated to one of our guest bloggers?

What you fail to understand is that The BRAD BLOG is not about left or right. It's about right and wrong.

Does the CBO meet the incredibly high standard required here?

http://www.cbo.gov/sites...hments/2012_02%20MBR.pdf

Again, since you feel compelled to answer my question to Brad, would you just answer it already?

"I don't know" is actually preferred to the blathering about other, non-related topics.

And, for what it's worth, Buzz IS my real name. Remember Route 66, the TV show? My next older brother's name is Todd. My two oldest brothers asked if I could be named Buzz and my parents agreed. But, my name isn't really the issue now, is it?

Come on Ernie, be honest! Or, is Ernest REALLY your name?

8-)

Buzz

Just Buzz? So you don't have a last name?

Re-read @43, I've answered your question, insofar as I can. If Brad wants to add anything to it, he can.

I suspect the day Brad would invite an uninformed, fact-free, barely literate windbag to act as a guest blogger at this site will be the day Hell freezes over.

For my part, I don't see the need to waste another moment responding to nonsense.

Oh, darn the luck! It appears that you forgot to answer yet another question, Ernie.

Does the CBO meet the high standards here?

Again, "I don't know" is ALWAYS preferable if you can't or don't intend to answer!

Thank you SO much, Ernest!

Buzz

A friend just suggested to me that your name calling and avoidance of the questions might be because you just want to keep uncomfortable topics off of this "fiercely independent" site. I told them that couldn't possibly be the case. After all, Ernest writes "academic" articles (I didn't tell them that you don't realize that we don't live in a democracy...SHHHH, it's our secret, Ernest!)

I've got your back, Ernest! Fiercely and independently on, brother!

Buzz

Buzz @ 39 asked:

Hey Brad,

How does one go about getting a *Guest Blog* posted like Ernest?

You are welcome to send a guest blog submission to me via email and I'll be happy to consider it. However, given your demonstrated propensity for making shit up, I can't imagine you'd turn in anything with independently verifiable facts offering value added information not available elsewhere.

If your planned topics were the misleading and dishonest GOP talking points you just posted, then I can almost guarantee you we have no interest in that. There are plenty of wingnut sites, however, who have no journalistic standards whatsoever who will allow you to post all the misinformation and disinformation and propaganda you like. We're not particularly interested in that here. Have you checked with the Breibart folks? They're usually game.

But, beyond that, feel free to send whatever you like and I'm happy to consider it. Thanks for the offer!

Now, one other thing that would help: Displaying the intellectual honesty to answer any of the questions I've taken the time to ask you here. You have failed to do that even once. Also, not being a dismissive dick to those who have tried to offer you independently verifiable information in response to your misinformed comments would also help. But I don't suspect you'll be able to avoid that propensity either from the tone of most of your obnoxious comments here.

Again, try Breitbart's site. That love that shit. No skills, facts, news or honesty needed over there!

Brad,

My tin foil hat is in the shop for repairs. Did I miss the memo about the CBO now being classified as "dishonest GOP talking points"? Drat! I always suspected that something was going on when they didn't report that unemployment stayed below 8% after spending $877,000,000,000.00! Those rotten turds.

Well, you've got that CBO link, but if you want to dismiss it out-of-hand, I understand (given the revelation that the CBO is now on the list of things that we high-minded folks can disregard!)

What about CNN? They're pretty far left leaning. Will you accept information from them?

If so, here's my submission (based partially on information from that *extreme* right wing mouth-piece, the CBO):

To the fiercely independent Brad,

The CBO reports that Federal spending in February, 2012 created the largest ever, in all of recorded history, monthly budget deficit. $229,000,000,000.00. That outpaces the previous highest recorded monthly deficit in all of recorded history; $223,000,000,000.00 in February of 2011, with barack hussein obama as president and harry reid as Senate leader.

The hary reid controlled senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days. obama's budget projects $1,000,000,000,000.00 deficits for the next ten years. I suspect that Sara Palin is to blame for that, brothers!

(Here's the really good part- kudos in part to CNN)

The evil, putrid, filthy rich, who, as we all know were the ONLY benefactors of the Bush tax cuts, earn (ha! they're just fortunate) ~17% of the nation's income but only pay... hmmm, well, this may be a mistake... 37% of all Federal Income taxes. But I digress. It's not Fair© that they should have all that money! So, as comrade biden said, they should be willing to pay a slightly larger percentage of their income for the privilidge of living in the democracy of the USA. Heck, they don't deserve ANY of their ill gotten gains! In a democracy, we should be able to take all of it, brother! Let's see, according to CNN, they earned (or were fortunate enough to have fall into their fat cat limousines, more like it!) $1,300,000,000,000! Let's take it all and pay off all of our debt! Now that Guantanamo is shut down and we have a comprehensive immigration plan like obama guaranteed, we can finally live free, without burdensome debt. Huh? What's that? Taking ALL of the 1%'s income will only partially pay for 1 typical obama deficit? Well, who cares, it's Fair© after all. And more importantly, our democracy demands it!

http://money.cnn.com/201..._street_income/index.htm

Thank you for your consideration of my fiercely independent academic submission, brother Brad.

KILL THE RICH, brothers! It's only FAIR©!

(Hey, this being fiercely independent is pretty cool!)

I know I'll probably regret furnishing anything further in response to Buzz, but some of his arguments are so nonsensical that I am only left to shake my head.

Buzz asks, "Does the CBO meet the high standards here?"

This apparently refers to the fact that Buzz provided a PDF link to the Congressional Budget Office Analysis that reflects that during the first five months of FY 2012 the federal government incurred a budget deficit of $578 billion.

First, it is not the CBO that is seeking to obtain the status of "guest blogger" for The BRAD BLOG, Buzz, it is you.

Second, there is nothing in the CBO number that supports anything you've had to say here, or which refutes any of the points I made @40. Specifically, the linked CBO PDF neither attributes the deficit to the current administration nor negates the assertion I made @40 that George W. Bush was the biggest deficit spender in U.S. history. It does not refute the fact that one of GWB's first acts was to squander the Clinton surplus by pushing through tax cuts that almost exclusively benefited the top one percent.

($578 billion over five months does not work out to $229 billion/month as asserted by Buzz. Since the War in Afghanistan costs $2 billion/day, $300 billion of the $578 billion can be attributed to a war Bush started and Obama has failed to end with the GOP candidates, except Ron Paul, opposing the pending withdrawal timetable. The CBO does not provide an analysis as to how much of that five month deficit is caused by the Bush tax cuts, which the gutless Dems failed to repeal).

Buzz's assertion that CNN Money is a "far left-leaning" media outlet is too funny for words.

Buzz complains about my not answering his questions, even when I've not only answered them, but, on this thread and elsewhere, have demolished every point he has ever made. Yet he never once answered any of the questions I, or Brad, posed to him, including whether he was aware of George W. Bush having been the biggest deficit spender in U.S. history or what his estimate would be for the cost of war with Iran.

In fact, he has not even deigned to so much as reveal his full name.

Finally, I'm wondering what makes Buzz actually believe that he possess the qualifications for offering anything that would remotely approach Brad's high standards --- standards that could not be met by someone like "Joe the Plumber."

As posted at the bottom of my articles, I've been practicing law for more than three decades. (I graduated law school 4th in a class of 277 and was an editor of the law review). In addition to a juris doctor, I hold, with honors, both undergraduate and graduate degrees in political science.

What are your qualifications, Buzz?