David Blaska wrote: acereraser wrote:
David Blaska wrote:TRANSLATION: Two questions, no answers (unless one counts "blame someone else.") Obama got his stimulus, it didn't work. Why keep banging oneself in the head?
[Why would you expect anyone to answer your questions when you refuse to do the same?
I responded 11 times to that thread. If you want to disagree with those answers I can't stop you. But why lie about it? (I expect an answer, eraser.)
You didn't even tackle my favorite question from kurt_w
, "Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?", but that was probably because you stopped posting on page three of the seven page thread.
Here was the last list compiled by ilikebeans
Q1: What studies/statistics show that, for the other six states with strict photo voter ID laws, fraudulent voting at the ballot box decreased as a direct result of the law?
David Blaska wrote:Placing a mark on drivers licenses denoting felon is under consideration.
Q2: What is your source on this?
Q3: Assuming this plan passes, how would the law prevent felons from voting if they presented an ID other than their driver's license?
David Blaska wrote:As to the # of prosecutions: proving an intent and getting a conviction is a difficult and time-consuming proposition. Prevention is much more cost-effective.
Q4: Please cite numbers to show that prosecuting the current low numbers of fraudulent voters (11 charged in 2010) is more expensive to state taxpayers than the estimated $6 million this year and $4 million/year after this law will cost.
Optional question that requires no research at all!
Q5: Mr. Blaska, what is your opinion of the campaigns by Americans for Prosperity and Wisconsin Family Action to send absentee ballots with false submission dates and return addresses to AFP to solidly Democratic voting blocs?
Another question that requires no research at all! (thanks to acereraser for the link):
Q6: Mr. Blaska, please comment on the following quote by Paul Weyrich, noted conservative and founder of The Heritage Foundation and ALEC, among many others:
"I don't want everybody to vote," the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
I could be wrong, but I think most of it boils down to why you think the cost to implement the Voter ID law, as well as the roadblocks to a more comprehensive democracy, are justified when the fact is, the type of fraud the law will hope to eliminate accounts for about 44 millionths of one percent of the vote.
This was your last real answer, the rest were lame quips:
Sorry, Beans. I'm not going to do your leg work for you. The bill is passed; you lost.
If that is the best you can do to explain your position, fine, just say so, and people will probably stop expecting so much of you, just like with Ned Flanders