51
   

May I see your papers, citizen?

 
 
ZREX
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 02:23 pm
@parados,
I don t get your point. I have supported an ID the entire time , agreed the states were too restrictive and that action was needed to help the voters get what they needed. I was curious to know the distances to the poles to see if they were equally restrictive. What does owning a car have to do with anything I said. I am wanting to help clear the hurdle, what is your's?
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 02:29 pm
@ZREX,
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 07:24 am
@ZREX,
Quote:
That seems a bit restrictive, guess the get out to vote crowd should get busy giving people rides to the ID center


You have now said that the rides need to be given to people and you seem OK with that. If someone doesn't have a car then they need a ride as opposed to someone with a car. That is a restriction placed by government that gives some persons an advantage over others when getting an ID is harder than getting to the polling place.

Are you really this stupid ZREX?
ZREX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 08:47 am
@parados,
Your right, way to much effort expected on my part. Just keep the voting process with as many holes as possible, that way our confidence can continue to dwindle, we can spend money on bullshit court cases, partisan investigations. Hell make it even easier to vote, because obviously the integrity of the process does not matter. So maybe call in your vote...they may not have a phone tho....mail it, no couldn t afford postage. I am going to support voter ID. I will continue to be stupidly generous with my time and gas as I will continue to give rides for shopping, medical appointments and other activities or I could sit back on my elitist ass and criticize. You can be part of the problem or part of the solution. Oh and I'm case you missed it in your trolling the get out to vote folks were instramental in the last election GIVING PEOPLE RIDES TO VOTE. The insidious glen beck ranted for weeks it annoyed him so much. I think it will be cool to kick their asses, playing by their bullshit rules and leaving little for them to cry about....
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 08:57 am
@ZREX,
ZREX wrote:

Just keep the voting process with as many holes as possible, that way our confidence can continue to dwindle, we can spend money on bullshit court cases, partisan investigations.

But the voting process doesn't have holes in it now and that's the point. There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud - none. If there were, you might have some justification in putting up a small obstacle to voting to improve integrity, but since there isn't, the obstacle, no matter how small is still an obstacle. Plus if there were to be a concerted effort at voter fraud, it would be easy enough to make a concerted effort to create false ID's. It's not like there is going to be a TSA station at each voting booth. They will just glance at the picture and the name and wave you through. Lots of cost, disenfrachied voters and no reduction in voter fraud. I don't see the win here.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 08:59 am
@ZREX,
From what I understand fraudulent votes are counted in the hundreds, and as such are insignificant. The proposals would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands, if not millions of legitimate voters, as such it's anti-democratic gerrymandering. I notice that Jim Crow has made a return in the Doonsbury cartoons. The fact of the matter is some people don't think dark skinned people should be allowed to vote, and that is what this is all about.

Quote:
Proponents of a similar law proposed for Texas In March 2009 also argued that photo identification was necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Opponents respond that there is no evidence of such voter fraud in Texas, so no remedy is required, especially if such a remedy would decrease voting by senior citizens, the disabled, and lower-income residents. Opponents cited a study asserting that 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters do not have a photo ID.

State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) said, "Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas. The danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process." Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) said the proposed law "is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) spent $1.4 million investigating voter fraud but did not report any cases where a person tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place—arguably the only kind of fraud that photo ID laws would prevent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 09:02 am
@ZREX,
Quote:
Your right, way to much effort expected on my part. Just keep the voting process with as many holes as possible, that way our confidence can continue to dwindle, we can spend money on bullshit court cases, partisan investigations.

Your confidence is dwindling? WHY? Do you always rely on lack of evidence to sway your confidence. If so, you are an idiot.

Giving rides to the polls is a PERSONAL thing. Making people have IDs is a GOVERNMENT thing. The GOVERNMENT is different. Perhaps you don't understand that if you listen to Beck.

When the government purposely makes it more difficult to vote, then we have a problem. I can walk to my polling place. I can't walk to where I get my DL. The same is true for many people in urban areas. If I needed a ride to vote, there are MANY neighbors that would already be going to that place because we ALL vote on the same day. We do NOT all get our DL on the same day so I can't get a ride with someone else already going there.

You clearly must listen to Beck because you can't think about the steps involved in an issue.
0 Replies
 
ZREX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 09:29 am
I still think picture ID s are a good idea, but unnecessary Thank you engineer and izzythepush.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 09:30 am
@engineer,
Just in from Pennsylvania where their voter ID law is going to court:

Quote:
The state signed a stipulation agreement with lawyers for the plaintiffs which acknowledges there “have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states.”

Additionally, the agreement states Pennsylvania “will not offer any evidence in this action that in-person voter fraud has in fact occurred in Pennsylvania and elsewhere” or even argue “that in person voter fraud is likely to occur in November 2012 in the absense of the Photo ID law.”

Pennsylvania has said that over 750,000 registered voters do not have ID from the Transportation Department, a problem more concentrated in urban centers like Philadelphia. One top state Republican has claimed the voter ID law would help Mitt Romney win the Keystone state and Democrats have already altered their campaign plans should the law survives legal challenges.


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/pennsylvania_voter_id_no_in_person_voter_fraud.php
ZREX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 09:44 am
@engineer,
Thanks again, you can hit me over the head again if you want but the little stick you used the first time worked.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 10:36 am
Quote:
Now that Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) administration has obtained access to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database — records that Florida could have received months ago had it provided the necessary information to DHS — it has officially abandoned the error-riddled original purge list. But this move comes only after local governments were forced to spend thousands purging voters from the rolls.

The Scott administration now acknowledges that the 2,600-person list it once deemed “sure-fire” non-citizen voters is “obsolete.” As ThinkProgress reported, that list contained hundreds of eligible U.S. citizens.

But beyond inconveniencing hundreds of legitimate voters, the Scott administration’s reliance on that earlier bad list came with a heavy cost to already cash-strapped local governments. A ThinkProgress survey of six county elections supervisors reveals that that 2,031 letters they sent out, at the Scott administration’s instruction, cost them at least $10,000.

Averaged out, that comes to more than $5.14 per name and projects to over $13,000 in unnecessary costs to local governments. While this number may not seem huge, it doesn’t include the costs to the state government — or the opportunity cost of wasting local employees time on processing the purge efforts, instead of on ensuring fair and efficient elections. And the number is only going to go up with the Scott administration promising more purges in the future.

Last May, Scott took an ax to the state’s budget, cutting what he deemed “short-sighted, frivolous, wasteful spending.” It appears he may have missed some.


source
ZREX
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jul, 2012 11:11 am
@revelette,
Thank you for sharing! a good example of money being spent on partisan investigations, more to come I am sure.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 07:57 am
@ZREX,
"Show me your papers" okayed by judge.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Judge-OKs-contentious-part-of-Ariz-immigration-law-168698296.html
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 11:59 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
From what I understand fraudulent votes are counted in the hundreds,
and as such are insignificant.
(How many fraudulent votes were never detected, Izzy??)
The system has a right to defend itself
and it SHUD defend itself, from even ONE fraudulent vote.

Thay offer free id.s There is no problem.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 12:01 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
"Show me your papers" okayed by judge.
As well he SHUD.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:44 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people is a far greater crime. If this is just about voter fraud, then all legitimate voters should be given photo ID free of charge with enough time to vote.

David, this is gerrymandering, and you wouldn't be able to get away with it over here. It's an attempt to rig an election, just like a banana republic.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2012 01:50 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Thay offer free id.s There is no problem.


That's not true, they put hurdle after hurdle in the way of application. There was a case on the radio the other day where a 90 yr old woman had to apply to another state to get her birth certificate which had to be paid for, it took three months, and then lacked the required stamp so was invalid. She won't be able to get her ID in time. All the people interviewed/disenfranchised were elderly and black. They said it was Jim Crow all over again. Exactly the same tactics.

This is all about disenfranchising the poor and elderly. It's ******* criminal, it really is.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:06 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
Disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people is a far greater crime.
Izzy, u r re-defining words, to wit: disenfranchising & Gerrymandering.
Disenfranchising is the condition that has been imposed upon youth,
raping them out of their natural rights to vote, by discriminatory law,
on the ground that thay r smart enuf to be held accountable
for infractions of law that thay perpetrate (e.g., robbery, murder & taxes)
but that thay r too stupid to select which politicians will enact the laws by which thay r legally controlled.
( I believe that the rationale is that its OK to screw someone out of his natural rights, but ONLY if u insult his intelligence first. )


In the 1800s, there was a corrupt Democrat
Massachusetts politician named Elbridge Gerry
thru whose influence election district borders were demografically re-drawn
to generate politically desired results. One of the resulting districts
was said to resemble a salamander, in parlance corrupted to a Gerrymander.
No one is re-defining the borders of election districts in this election, Izzy.







izzythepush wrote:
If this is just about voter fraud, then all legitimate voters
should be given photo ID free of charge with enough time to vote.
That was DONE. That's the reason
that it survived a judicial challenge.

I re-iterate (AGAIN):
the right to vote is VERY important, but it is relatively slight & trivial
when it is compared to the right to remain alive, intact, defended
from slaughter by the predatory violence of animals or of criminals.


WHERE, Izzy, WHERE were the shrieks of agony & of indignation
when the police began to require PICTURES to be added to gun licenses??????
I heard absolute silence -- silence -- more silence, and still yet additional silence
qua that requirement. How do u explain that? Is the right to live LESS important than the right to vote??
Is the right to defend your property LESS important than the right to vote?????




izzythepush wrote:
David, this is gerrymandering, [???]
and you wouldn't be able to get away with it over here.
U don 't live in a free country.



izzythepush wrote:
It's an attempt to rig an election, just like a banana republic.
Your assertion is false.





David
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:13 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
In the 1800s, there was a corrupt Democrat
Massachusetts politician named Elbridge Gerry

In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Sep, 2012 05:19 pm
@DrewDad,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
In the 1800s, there was a corrupt Democrat
Massachusetts politician named Elbridge Gerry
DrewDad wrote:
In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill that redistricted Massachusetts
to benefit his Democratic-Republican Party.
Hay, what kind of Democratic FRAUD r u trying to pull?
That has a negative bearing upon your credibility.
THAT party IS and it became THE DEMOCRATS,
the same one upon which F. Roosevelt & the Kennedys ran.

The Republican Party began in 1854.
(If I remember) it started 1 candid8 before Abe Lincoln.





David
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2021 at 11:01:10