2012 Election | News | Sarah Silverman

Sarah Silverman Rips GOP Attempts to Disenfranchise Voters in the Way Only She Can: VIDEO


Sarah Silverman blasts Voter ID laws in an obscenity-laden new video.

"Hey black people, old people, poor people and students. Guess what you all have in common? Lawmakers are trying to f**k you in your a**holes."


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. That was awesome!

    Posted by: Kucklehead | Sep 21, 2012 11:27:27 AM

  2. Sarah Silverman has just attained "hero" status in my book. This is my #1 issue to raise awareness for this election.

    Posted by: Jim | Sep 21, 2012 11:28:55 AM

  3. Amazing.

    Posted by: Daniel | Sep 21, 2012 11:38:16 AM

  4. "Sarah Silverman has just attained "hero" status in my book"

    Yes, sir, nothing like a potty-mouthed, obnoxious, whiney little woman spewing obscenities to make an intelligent case to the public.

    Also great how she implies that being "f*cked" in your "a-holes" is a horrible thing. No homophobia there, right?

    Oh, that's right, if you are a foul-mouthed, b!tchy straight woman, you can be as homophobic as you like and it's just fine.....

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 21, 2012 11:38:30 AM

  5. I do agree with Rick. That line was just stupid. Where's her editor?

    Other than that I love it.

    Posted by: BenR | Sep 21, 2012 11:47:58 AM

  6. Rick, there are different ways to get f**ked; some ways feel good, others not so much. Are you aware of this or has bitterness taken away your sense of reasoning?

    Posted by: Jack M | Sep 21, 2012 11:48:36 AM

  7. @ Rick - I don't know WHY I'm directing anything towards you, including a few wasted neurons, but isn't it damn obvious this is comedy?! Go read Shakespeare if you want serious writing or something!

    Posted by: Drew | Sep 21, 2012 11:54:24 AM

  8. Since when do old people want to vote for Obama?

    Posted by: AT | Sep 21, 2012 11:56:05 AM

  9. Oh, yeah, Rick, you totally have Silverman pegged: such a homophobe! But the GOP? They are AOK!!!


    Posted by: Mikemike | Sep 21, 2012 12:00:02 PM

  10. Far left propaganda. There s nothing unreasonable about requiring a voter to prove their identity before receiving a ballot. That has been the law in Canada for years. One instance of voter fraud is too many.

    Posted by: ron | Sep 21, 2012 12:05:19 PM

  11. Rick - Although you have a point, is it really as strong as your response would indicate? You get angrier with each post. If you want to convince people of your point that there is intrinsic homophobia in gay male - straight female relationships, maybe you could post in a way that can be processed. Going all out as if every instance of imperfect language is as serious as genocide isn't working.

    Posted by: Markt | Sep 21, 2012 12:10:29 PM

  12. "Since when do old people want to vote for Obama?"

    Now, that they've been told that they are part of the 47% of wannabe victims in this country.

    Also, old people want to vote for Obama when they were born in the South 75 years ago, and were not born in a hospital. Now, they're living in Philadelphia, and have no way of getting a birth certificate to show in order to get the new Pennsylvania Photo ID card.

    How much would it cost for a 70 year old to get the state of Georgia to issue them a birth certificate? And would Georgia do it before November 6th?

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 21, 2012 12:13:25 PM

  13. Also, here in Pennsylvania the state supreme court sent the issue back to the commonwealth courts. They're demanding that the state prove they can get these photo IDs to the people that need them before the November election.

    I read that out of potentially 800,000 Pennsylvania voters who need photo IDs-- that so far the state has issued 10,000. There aint much time left, and that's exactly how the Republicans planned it.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Sep 21, 2012 12:25:52 PM

  14. @MARKT You may be right. I may overdo it at times. I started out posting less angrily on this site, but so many of the commenters don't even listen to reason and go on the attack whenever someone suggests any idea that does not fit the "party line", no matter how calmly and rationally it is presented, that it is sometimes hard to control one's temper.

    Thanks for the advice, though.....I will keep it in mind in the future.

    Posted by: Rick | Sep 21, 2012 12:33:56 PM

  15. @Ron: Yes, even one instance of voter fraud is worth any steps we have to take to prevent it. And if it will preclude even one instance of a child being abducted, all kids should have microchips inserted into their heads. And if it will prevent even one instance of dwi, all people *with* drivers licenses should be banned from bars.

    Nothing is too drastic or out of proportion if it will keep us safe from any kind of risk at all. Risk is too awful to think about.

    Posted by: Mort | Sep 21, 2012 12:36:53 PM

  16. @Ron: I'm glad a Republican finally found something that they like about Canada... It's a banner day! I can't wait for you to come out in support of single-payer universal healthcare, which Canada has had for decades and decades.

    Posted by: RyanInWyo (formerly RyanInSacto) | Sep 21, 2012 12:48:15 PM

  17. I dont know what I am missing here but I am totally confused to as why it is bad that you need to show photo id to vote?
    You need id to do anything..get on a plane rent items..what is the big deal?

    Posted by: hotbeef | Sep 21, 2012 1:53:37 PM


    Posted by: Luke | Sep 21, 2012 1:55:43 PM

  19. HOTBEEF: Voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. None of those other activities that you listed constitute such rights. Voter ID laws – particularly ones passed in 11th hour before a major election – disenfranchise people. Get it now? Let me make it even more clear for you: the only states where these laws are being proposed are swing states with Republican-controlled legislatures. These laws are not about preventing fraud, they're about preventing particular groups of eligible voters from voting.

    Posted by: RyanInWyo (formerly RyanInSacto) | Sep 21, 2012 2:46:14 PM

  20. They're so concerned about voter fraud, when it's actually ELECTION fraud that's the problem. (Remember Florida in 2000, or Ohio in 2004, anyone? Caging lists? Purging voting rolls?)

    The republicans don't want to even consider fixing that. Because they like it that way.

    Posted by: kdknyc | Sep 21, 2012 2:47:38 PM

  21. that's a freakin' knockout

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Sep 21, 2012 2:55:28 PM

  22. @Ron

    Don't be such an arse - there are THREE acceptable forms of voter identification in Canada:

    u must prove your identity and address. You have three options:

    Option 1
    Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.

    Example: driver's licence.


    Option 2

    Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

    Example: health card and hydro bill.


    Option 3

    Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.

    Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.

    Further information is available at the Elections Canada website: http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

    There are also provisions for those who are homeless to identify themselves and be permitted to vote. And there is no absolute requirement for people to appear on the rolls in advance, one can be added to the rolls at the polls themselves. Yes, we have voter identification laws, but they have been framed to MAXIMIZE exercise of the franchise, not restrict it.

    Posted by: Canadian Observer | Sep 21, 2012 3:00:37 PM

  23. @Ron "One instance of voter fraud is too many." Sure, and one vote denied in the guise of preventing fraud is too many. Turns out that the entire state of Florida has revised the list of unauthorized votes to a whopping 33 - over multiple elections. And it only cost many months and hundreds of thousands of dollars and man-hours that could have been spent providing government services. The best part? That list won't make it to the county election boards in time to remove them from the voting rolls. In PA, however, hundreds of thousands of votes will be denied.

    Posted by: Dave | Sep 22, 2012 1:22:12 AM

  24. Sarah Silverman ... I love you!!! You have totally made my month. Thank you.

    Posted by: Javier | Sep 22, 2012 1:55:35 AM

  25. @ ron, "One instance of voter fraud is too many."
    One valid voter turned away at the polls is one too many. I would rather see one instance of fraud than one where a citizen is denied their rights.

    Posted by: jleo71 | Sep 22, 2012 3:42:20 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «'The Hunger Games' Gets the Bad Lip Reading Treatment: VIDEO« «