RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Alumbrado -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 12:30:14 PM)

quote:

...for all those citing a "right to vote for president" find it for me please where the constitution recognizes it?


Correct, but not useful...[:D]

As long as elections are being held.. both voter fraud and voter disenfranchisement should be worked against, or they will influence direct elections as well.



Owner59 -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 12:34:00 PM)

 
You can argue all you want against voting and people not being represented.

I`m not interested.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Though I like you Archer,when republicans bring up the Constitution,I laugh,cry and get sick to my stomach.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think you also know what we`re talking about here.

One man(woman),one vote.



Archer -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 12:41:33 PM)

Personally I believe they could simplify the whole problem by doing one simple thing.
When you register to vote, you get a photo voter registration card.
Require re registration every 10 years or so to update the photo if you don't move, and when you move in any other case.

I'm not against any and all citizens of the US voting, I am about the elimination of the opportunities that are too damned easy to defraud the system. illegal aliens, felons (where applicable), folks who have been too lazy to get properly registered, folks who try to cast ballots for their dead relatives, etc.

BTW Owner you keep forgetting that I'm not a republican, I am not registered with any party and tend to vote (past 3 presidential elections) for the Libertarian candidate, and have cast my vote for local and state offices with more Libertarians than Republicans.

My calling this to attention was mearly to take the "rightious indignation arguments" out of your mix. As has been cited already Voter ID laws have been through the mill and after several failures they have been adjusted enough to pass Supream Court review.
The inconvienience of having to go out and get the ID has not been shown to be large enough when ballanced against the opportunity (and established record) to commit fraud.



Irishknight -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 12:51:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

You can argue all you want against voting and people not being represented.

I`m not interested.

I guess you haven't railed against the supposed disenfranchisement in the elections in Florida then.  Why does this stuff only count against Republicans?

You also said one man/woman, one vote.  Why is it so bad to try to make that happen?



Mercnbeth -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 12:58:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
<the ever diligent Marc chimes in with an irrelevant point>
Merc,you know what we`re talking about here......
You get points for effort, though.


We're talking about your allegation that requiring an ID for a voter is a "republican effort to deny legitimate voters their due rights of enfranchisement."

The relevance is to your statement; "Voting is our right,our birthright and part of what makes up our liberties and freedoms. It was there and established long before any of us breathed air."

It is TOTALLY incorrect. Your position regarding the requirement of a verifiable ID associated with that statement is based upon a FALSE assumption. Voting is not a right and requiring an ID to insure a one vote per person isn't discouraging anything but fraud.

Unfortunately for your agenda - its not political party specific.

Tell me Owner - ever admit to being wrong?



Owner59 -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 1:24:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Irishknight

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

You can argue all you want against voting and people not being represented.

I`m not interested.

I guess you haven't railed against the supposed disenfranchisement in the elections in Florida then.  Why does this stuff only count against Republicans?

You also said one man/woman, one vote.  Why is it so bad to try to make that happen?


Well,you`re new here.I`ve railed against the stolen Florida 2000 election, plenty.

Against voter caging,phony voter registration groups that canvas the public and dump the democratic registrations in the can, while filing the republican ones.Against the SCOTUS getting involved in a state`s issue and for voting machines that work being placed in all districts.

Florida and Bush are great examples of why presidents shouldn`t be appointed to office,but rather voted in with all votes counted.

Just look how fucked up things have gotten.



Irishknight -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 6:47:45 PM)

I've read your rants against those things yet you said you weren't interested.  All I'm saying is that either there is a problem or there isn't.  There are indeed things wrong that we can repair or even nip in the bud before either side can exploit them.  If we fix the system it will be fixed for everyone not just one side.
One of your posts reminded me of the bird flu scam that swept the country.  Remember how we were all going to die from the bird flu?  Nobody seemed to be complaining about trying to have a vaccine ready.  Yet when we try to head off a potential source of voter fraud, we are hurting people.  If we FIX the problems as we see them coming, nobody will have a Florida 2000 to complain about again.



Leatherist -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 7:15:17 PM)

What we actually need is a federal id card, backed up with retinal scans. Any legitimate citizen could then be checked for thier status and residency. Including thier convitcion record. Felons are not allowed to vote.

It would also greatly simplify solving the problem with illegals trying to dodge the system. I know that people would be screaming about "freedom of state's rights" over something like that-but I think that only those with reason to fear would object to a national database.

But think about how easy it would make it to actually confirm who someone was. Retinal patterns cannot be faked. It would help cut down on credit card fraud if stores had eye readers.

The criminal attempting to use a stolen card would not only be rejected-but recorded as having made a fraud attempt. Something which would hold up in court. And we could nail thier asses.

Ditto someone passing a bad/stolen check, trying to buy restricted  drugs at a pharmacy......various bunko schemes......and of course, applying for work without documentation-those fake and stolen social security numbers would be an instant tip off.

And no wetback is going to want to put his or her eye up to a scanner-instantly being registered and reffered to an ins database as a suspected criminal. Sorry, no scan-no work.

No money-go BACK.

All in all, I am for MORE identity solutions, and tougher ones. I have NO political allegences-I'm just tired of this bullshit going on and on..it has to end..



Irishknight -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 8:36:37 PM)

I was with you till the wetback statement.  When you throw out racial slurs, it adds fuel to the fire of the "this is tostop hispanics/blacks/insert ethnic group here from voting" crowd. 

I will agree that it would help us control the illegals in this country by disallowing them the use of many services.  i just see no reason to resort to name calling.



orfunboi -> RE: Partisan voter supression law gets vetoed by Kansas Governor (5/22/2008 8:39:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: orfunboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: orfunboi



Save the word games... you tried to equate homelessness with not being a legal resident for voting purposes...


And you can pour all the syrup you want on that pile, it still isn't going to turn it into pancakes.... there is no legal mandate that 'the homeless' cannot vote, no matter how badly you may want to stop them.


I never mentioned homeless. Someone said you didn't have to be a resident to vote, and I pointed out that you did. As far as the homeless go, I was homeless and I still needed ID. In fact I needed ID more often then, than I do now. I guess it was lucky that the agencies were and are there to help me get that ID.


Define "resident".

Many ~US citizens~ ,vote from abroad by absentee ballot.

"I was homeless and I still needed ID. In fact I needed ID more often then, than I do now. I guess it was lucky that the agencies were and are there to help me get that ID."

This is the whole point of tying voting  to a required~state issued, photo ID~.


To knock out voters from demographics, that primarily vote democratic.



To make it harder for those people to vote.If republicans suffered under these law,it never would have been brought up.

This is just one part of an overall dirty tricks effort by republicans to gain or hold power.

Running on the merrits or issues that  matter to people, is not their forte.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Notice how republicans aren`t keen on election fraud?

Probably because of all the republicans in jailed,prosecuted,busted for it.


It wasn't hard to get an ID. If it had been required to show ID to vote, it still would have been just as easy to get the ID. Do you honestly believe all homeless are democrats? Why do you think that is?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625