<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: News Of The Day</title>
	<link>http://rightwingnation.com/2008/04/28/news-of-the-day/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:47:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: weaver</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnation.com/2008/04/28/news-of-the-day/#comment-118480</link>
		<dc:creator>weaver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://rightwingnation.com/2008/04/28/news-of-the-day/#comment-118480</guid>
		<description>interestingly, but not surprisingly, the media here in indiana has focussed on the 'splintered' decision, the 'split' decision, 'no single majority opinion' making it sound like there was a lot of disagreement on the issue in SCOTUS. 

wrong.   6 - 3 is a clear majority and the opinions were really interesting.   on the right there was the 'yes, this law is constitutional' and 'hell yes! this law is constitutional'.   on the left there was, 'we don't like it but it doesn't target any group, but we don't like it, what about the POOR?? the ELDERLY??' and 'but there hasn't been any voter fraud so why do you have to protect against it?'

since indiana provides a FREE photo ID to whoever will show up with the papers to get one, i find the poor/elderly argument ridiculous.   the poor and elderly i know are smart enough to get to the office and get IDs.   which poor and elderly are they concerned about?

their final argument made me laugh out loud.  so we're supposed to lock the barn AFTER the horse is stolen?   gimme a break.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>interestingly, but not surprisingly, the media here in indiana has focussed on the &#8217;splintered&#8217; decision, the &#8217;split&#8217; decision, &#8216;no single majority opinion&#8217; making it sound like there was a lot of disagreement on the issue in SCOTUS. </p>
<p>wrong.   6 - 3 is a clear majority and the opinions were really interesting.   on the right there was the &#8216;yes, this law is constitutional&#8217; and &#8216;hell yes! this law is constitutional&#8217;.   on the left there was, &#8216;we don&#8217;t like it but it doesn&#8217;t target any group, but we don&#8217;t like it, what about the POOR?? the ELDERLY??&#8217; and &#8216;but there hasn&#8217;t been any voter fraud so why do you have to protect against it?&#8217;</p>
<p>since indiana provides a FREE photo ID to whoever will show up with the papers to get one, i find the poor/elderly argument ridiculous.   the poor and elderly i know are smart enough to get to the office and get IDs.   which poor and elderly are they concerned about?</p>
<p>their final argument made me laugh out loud.  so we&#8217;re supposed to lock the barn AFTER the horse is stolen?   gimme a break.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Law and Order Teacher</title>
		<link>http://rightwingnation.com/2008/04/28/news-of-the-day/#comment-118417</link>
		<dc:creator>Law and Order Teacher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:44:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://rightwingnation.com/2008/04/28/news-of-the-day/#comment-118417</guid>
		<description>Imagine the Supreme Court requiring a voter to show ID to combat voter fraud.  Why you would think that they wanted fair and honest elections.  What's the world coming to.  The Dems can't have their illegal alien supporters vote illegally for them.  What a shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Imagine the Supreme Court requiring a voter to show ID to combat voter fraud.  Why you would think that they wanted fair and honest elections.  What&#8217;s the world coming to.  The Dems can&#8217;t have their illegal alien supporters vote illegally for them.  What a shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
