rob

[video:youtube]OYHL6AYAwQU

Nobody really knew their ex -- or else they wouldn't have gotten with them in the first place. That's why I dislike everybody right from the beginning. It always ends up that way in the end, so you might save a lot of time.

I wouldn't count on Obama stepping up for anything.

I love this place.

That's because most people aren't saying anything. Voter turnout is abysmal.

This is so they can start rounding up petition signatories. The last thing we need is an uppity populace.

But sometimes another's opinion IS wrong. I mean, take Bill, for example.

I was gonna get some stuff done today but I'm still not finished doing nothing from yesterday.

Who cares if Cain leaves? Newt is picking up the slack! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335118-503544/newt-gingrich-poor-kids-dont-work-unless-its-illegal

Wouldn't matter either way to most of us. Does it change the way he would be as President as it relates to getting the job done? Anyway, I think we all are in acceptance mode after the parade of Clinton accusers. But so what? If you go back the last century (or perhaps all the way back, this isn't a recent phenomenon) and look at Presidents who had extramarital affairs and tossed out the ones who did, who would be left to run the country? At the end of the day you want to know if the guy could do the job, not do the aid or the maid. Hell, they'll probably all be doing the aid and the maid. "Sally who?" Do you think old Tom asked, "you want a job, don't you?" before raping his slaves?

Oh shit, it's on the internets now. You might as well sign the petition.

Beware Pat's mai tai. I'd have taken my underwear off, had I been wearing any.

I grow my own coffee. I got enough beans this year for ONE CUP! I grew my own tobacco once. It was nasty.

Actually, i'm pretty sure he's said as much to me before Well, it's not like anything KKK writes has any connection to reality so you shouldn't take it literally. Berating by any means possible those who say things he doesn't like is pretty much his entire purpose in spray. Doesn't 5K support state-workers' rights to collective bargaining? I thought I remember him at least arguing that state workers aren't the freeloading scumbags that other people on this site make them out to be. So he can't be ALL wrong, can he? Don't ALL of us berate other people who don't agree with what we say? I thought that was the game.

Hmm, no, I get that. Bit I think you're missing the point, though. How do you know if somebody asking for the data has good intentions? Make them check a box promising not to use the data to harass? If I want to prevent people from checking on my petition, all I have to do is have a friend threaten to harass my signatories and now it's secret? Sounds too easy. Sometimes privacy is less important than transparency. That's why political donations beyond a certain limit are public. And I don't. So I think you and I are done here. Aww...don't be like that. I'm not being mean to you, I'm just discussing. I think you're doing the right thing: you want privacy, so you refuse to sign petitions. What's wrong with that? You vote just like everyone else.

LOL. Funny how you never say that to your buddy rob, j_b or Ivan, or... Actually, i'm pretty sure he's said as much to me before

We're not talking about verifying legitimacy. We're talking about data-mining for nefarious purposes. A non-governmental agency charged with verifying the accuracy of legitimacy of the electoral process is one thing, and a thing which I believe everyone can support. But when any opponent of a petition can summon the personal information of the supporters of that petition (by invoking the PRA), what other purpose would there be in that if not to attempt to change those supporters' minds? And just how do you think those opponents might go about doing that? Could that be by harrassment, intimidation, and "uncomfortable conversations"...?? Which "non-governmental agency" gets "charged" to verify legitimacy? ANYONE should be able to verify legitimacy. That's how public democracy and transparency works. You shouldn't have a closed list of people who are "allowed" to challenge authenticity. How do you propose deciding who has the right to look at the signatories, and who doesn't? Who gets that make THAT decision? Exactly right. If you don't want people to know how you feel, then you shouldn't lobby a new ballot initiative by signing a petition. Or by donating more than $200.

Wait, it was their mistake, but they're unwilling to replace them? Who did you order them from, so I can avoid doing business? Sorry, man! I am not out any cash. I do the shipping FOR Totem in the U.S. It is just inconvenient as I have orders to fill and the loss to the company hurts. Totem is a good company and you don't have to worry about customer service with them. Whoops! I totally misunderstood, and got something else entirely sorry! I'll keep an eye out for them! Out of curiosity, how much is in a whole shipment? How many cams are we talking about?

Imagine how terrifying it would be if there were no non-government agency capable of verifying a petition's legitimacy, and therefore the legitimacy of the initiative on the ballot itself? Fucking terrifying.

Wait, it was their mistake, but they're unwilling to replace them? Who did you order them from, so I can avoid doing business? Sorry, man!

My point was, this is not a new rule. It's not a "new, dark path." This information has always been public. This is just an upholding of an existing law. Nothing has changed. It's not a "secret ballot." It's a petition. Sure, if I sign a petition, that might show my hand regarding how I might vote. But if I donate money, that would do the same thing. Should political donors be secret now, too? You know, to protect them from harassment! Gimme a break. I have a right to know who in congress sponsored a bill, and I have a right to know who among the citizenry "sponsored" an initiative (by signing a petition). You really think that should be secret? Tempest in a teapot. http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php OH NO!!! PUBLIC DONATION RECORDS??!! Next come the "Sturmabteilung-esque" groups outside the polling booths!!!

I don't see the irony. I think you're just looking for it.

Looks like I'm right! http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/supreme-court-rules-petition-signers-names-secret/story?id=11003913#.TtbWAbKd7Ks It's the gay haters who tried to block that, by filing suit in federal court. So "TTK's petition" didn't change existing law, it just defended it. Incidentally, the court did uphold sealing the names if harassment is an issue. They just didn't agree that it was, in this case. Additionally, it's hard to see how you can blame gay-rights advocates for this. IMO the SCOTUS ruled correctly on this issue, upholding a reasonable law. Why in the world should petition signer's names be private????

I'm not expert, but I think I gotta call B.S. People who sign petitions are ALWAYS public (as they damn well should be), except unless they can prove it will be dangerous for them to be public, which is what the gay-haters tried to claim.

State employees pay taxes, too. Does that make them self-employed?