joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 Wow! Maybe you should stop drinking the kool aid for a bit. Funny that you put this here, but further down, demand that I be objective in the reply. That's being rather hypocritical. Playing little games like this underminds your credibility. quote:
ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 It doesn't take thousands of people involved in vast conspiracy, it just takes a small group willing to abuse the system. How do you know? Have you tried doing the task yourself? Can you give all of us a first hand viewpoint on whether it does indeed take a few thousand or not? Since in every case that has come up, the fraud rate was so low as to be irrelevant in the long run. Most states have a set of rules/regulations in place that if two candidates are within 'X' votes, a more indepth counting takes place. It doesnt happen to often and its pretty hard to predict. And in most contests the difference between the two top candidates was beyond a 3-5% margin of error. In addition, a few people will risk some serious jail time on a election that no one knows the final out come on is a HUGE gamble. Do you typically gamble the rest of your life as a free person on a one in thirty million chance of your guy/gal winning? quote:
ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 As far as doing away with the 4th amendment, not sure which attack manual you pulled that out of, but this is not a privacy issue. You may have noticed that you have to be registered to vote? So please keep the objections realistic? quote:
4th Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If a police officer stops you while your walking down the road and demands your ID, its perfectly legal to ask why this action needs to be taken. In a voting station, if you state who you are and where you live that should be sufficient. If the police believe you are not, that would imply probable cause......at which point....it would be reasonable to ask for a photo ID. The notion of 'papers' is the old school defination of a driver's license and/or state ID. Back in 1790, they didnt have automobiles for one very obvious reason. Why should citizens have to 'Show your papers'? Has the United States gone the way of Nazi Germany? Or the USSR? If I am already registered to vote, that would imply all this information was checked and verified before the date of the election. So why would I need to re-verify who I am and where I live a second time? Do you know how many people could pass themselves off as me? Less then 0.01% of this planet. Plus they would have to get all the other characteristics of myself AND be able to pass the folks that know me on a first name basis. Good luck! quote:
ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 As far as all the frothing at the mouth about Conservatives, the conservative politicians are just as crooked as the liberal ones. I don't consider Rep. Michelle Bachmann crooked, I consider her insane! Mr. Santorium isnt crooked, he's hell bent on turning the USA into a theocracy. Mr. Perry would like to have us all dumbed down to his level. Rep. Ron Paul isn't crooked, he's totally for a 'two term limit' policy; been saying that now for eight terms in office! And Mitt Romney? Ok, that guy *IS* a crook (but hey, I'm a Masshole, what would I know about Mitt Romney (rolls eyes)). I have my issues with President Obama, but he still seems the best choice for the country. He's more than four times as intelligent as all the GOP Candidates. He behaves 'presidential' which is more than I can say for the GOP wannabes. He takes his 'family values' to heart rather than wear it on his sleeve. I can accept if you do not agree with him. quote:
ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 And as to where I heard about that voter fraud in Troy, it was on my local news. And how did you check to see if the information was both valid and factual? Did you speak to the person(s) and/or their lawyer(s) regarding whether or not they are innocent? Do you immediately assume the person(s) caught are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Just because someone is arrested for a crime does not always mean they are guilty of said crime. quote:
ORIGINAL: coyotesub315 I am really sick of seeing this kind of reply. I don't care that you disagree with me, that is fine. But state your own position without having to go off the deep end. And it would be nice if, every time some one posted sort of evidence in reply to someone requesting more proof, that the reply not be "ok, so there is some...but you haven't proven it to a high enough standard." And WHO started off with the kool aid bit? The evidence so far that states that voter fraud is both massive and out of control is flimsy at best. Republicans brought this forward given that those that are poor generally vote for the Democrats. That is the sad truth about the voter ID laws; they seek to undermind the democratic process that favors the wealthy over the poor. This isn't a class warfare issue so much as one of logistics. Some homeless guy gets beat up by a gang of youths. They take his identification a day before he can vote. So by no fault of his own, he cant vote in the election. Does that sound fair to you? It only has to happen ONCE for the law to be taken to court. You willing to gamble that there are no idealistic lawyers in this nation? Or egotistical lawyers willing to take the case if only to get their name in the history books? You watch, those voter ID laws will be over turned in the future. Can we just have a nice, intelligent discussion?
|