quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Gimme a break. This isn't about voter suppression. You are whining about the law not being aimed at these supposedly disenfranchised groups, and bring in race and socio-economic status. Why? This law applies to them as much as it applies to the others. They have to have their ID's, too, do they not?
Lemme guess...you have no problem with laws aimed at those that earn more, though, right?

u HAVE a break, ur a younger white Male ,
....look in the mirror mister, u are not in any way the target of this law. u never have under any law have to change ur name, nor have to deal with any of the laws provisions. u are a member of the least likely demographic ANY ID law would apply to. Go figure.
if its not about about voter suppression, its awfully funny that its the functional end result.
And actually no I dont have any problem with a GOOD law that works for everybody.... Voter ID laws dont fit that description.
I DID ask u to....
"find Me anyone who is white and makes upwards of $200K thats going to be affected by this law? .....even $30K?? do I hear $20K? ,.....( insert their silence with sounds of crickets chirping here,...) .....any body white at even a $10K income level??" -
...I see u didnt really answer the question because even u know what the answer is...NONE
....nobody directly called u any names, that I know of...... but if the thought process fits.... (I did call it a fascist law if u want to add any names u might of missed... Just say'n...)

I didn't answer the question directly because it's a rhetorical question.

And, my skin color has nothing to do with it. And, "younger?" Really? I don't agree with that, but, okay. lol

So, how are we to know that the people who are coming in to vote are Citizens who are the only ones with the right to vote?

How are we to know that the people coming in to vote are who they say they are?

And, okay, I can see that there is a valid argument for this law being used to suppress voting, but it will truly only suppress fraudulent voting. If you look at legal, rightful voting, this won't suppress that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Preamble: The Tea Party Movement is an all-inclusive American grassroots movement with the belief that everyone is created equal and deserves an equal opportunity to thrive in these United States where they may “pursue life, liberty and happiness” as stated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

No one is excluded from participation in the Tea Party Movement. Everyone is welcomed to join in seeking to achieve the Tea Party Movement goals, which are as follows:

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending
4. Protect Free Markets
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States
6. Promote Civic Responsibility
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government
8. Believe in the People
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics
10. Maintain Local Independence

1. Eliminate Excessive Taxes - and only the wealthy pay excessive taxes
2. Eliminate the National Debt - only when We're not in a war time economy and only use social programs to do so.
3. Eliminate Deficit Spending - see #2 ...and only when the other party is in the white house...and when dont have or own pet projects to win votes with.
4. Protect Free Markets - And any corporate profits & wealthy tax cuts
5. Abide by the Constitution of the United States - And WE concider ourselves the only ones who do....so whatever anyone else wants is not Constitutional
6. Promote Civic Responsibility - unless we lose an election then we find ways to cull the rabble who arent voting our way
7. Reduce the Overall Size of Government - that way when u need it to work for u, it cant.
8. Believe in the People - unless ur gay, or kinky then We dont want u to exist
9. Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - like bi-partisanship or losing an election due to poor people voting
10. Maintain Local Independence - so there can be a thousand variations of the same law so nobody can know really whats going on.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
This is a strange distraction for a nation in which too little voting is the actual problem and too much voting the imagined problem. Obviously, this is a naked politcal ploy to reduce the Democratic vote and anyone arguing otherwise is disingenuous. It's like Casablanca; I am shocked to discover there is politcs going on here..LOL

By "Democratic vote," are you referring to votes for the candidate(s) running in the Democratic Party, or as in the meaning that shares it's root with democracy?
Why do we force Citizens to be 18 before they can vote?

The 'D' was capital thus signifying votes for the political party. Moreover, that is the meaning implied by the context. I do not understand the question. We do not force anything and I think minimum voting ages have obvious justifications.

Yep, minimum voting ages mean that not all Citizens have the right to vote. And, what are the obvious justifications of minimum age voting laws?

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
....look in the mirror mister, u are not in any way the target of this law. u never have under any law have to change ur name, nor have to deal with any of the laws provisions. u are a member of the least likely demographic ANY ID law would apply to. Go figure.

quote:

if its not about about voter suppression, its awfully funny that its the functional end result.
And actually no I dont have any problem with a GOOD law that works for everybody.... Voter ID laws dont fit that description

quote:

Once again VOTERID is a solution looking for a GOP problem to solve and the fact that even u are now only bleating one line "how do we know...." that has been answered multiple times already..... WE ALLREADY KNOW..... THE CURRENT WAYS TO SUPPORT WHO GETS TO VOTE ARE SUFFICENT AND COST EFFECTIVE TO HANDLE ANY CURRENT ELECTION. and sir, u know it. u've been given a plethora of links and references to support the contention that this is nothing BUTT a republican ploy to suppress voters who do not traditionally vote GOP.

quote:

Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.

quote:

u on the other hand have yet to really offer anything other than repetitive questions. no real proof that there IS a voter fraud problem in the first place.

quote:

This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats. ... Of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000.

quote:

So... let Me fully understand that ur statement "truly only suppress fraudulent voting" means that to u.... the poor, the disabled, veterans, and the old... AND anyone who have any issues with a birth certificate even if they were born & lived their entire lives in the USA are frauds as voters & worthy of suppression since its been proven multiple times that the only real persons affected by the voterID laws are those people who DO NOT traditionally vote GOP?

quote:

"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes," wrote liberal Justice John Paul Stevens for a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision upholding Indiana's ID law, the toughest in the nation.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
It is not clear what you are getting at. The fact that people yet to reach the age of majority cannot vote has nothing to do with voter identification laws.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
M asked me this weekend "Why is the Left against needing to show ID to vote?"
I explained that there are far more cases of people being struck by lightening than instances of voter fraud and that the real point of the law is to suppress the vote of people who tend to vote for Democrats, such as students, who we discussed at length. He was surprised to learn so many Wisconsin students - up to 98% at some schools - do not have driver's licenses. (The new voter laws do not accept student IDs.)

Sources?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
It is not clear what you are getting at. The fact that people yet to reach the age of majority cannot vote has nothing to do with voter identification laws.

Are people that have "yet to reach the age of majority" not Citizens of the US?

It shares the same false outrage of voter suppression.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38
You reasoning is a non-sequitur. A legislative plan to make voting more difficult for those citizens who have the right to vote has nothing to do with determining which citizens have the right to vote. This shouldn't be difficult for you to understand.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama
I was wondering about the earlier 93% no DL at some schools figure I saw - it's 98% that do not have DL with their current address.
http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/barriers/DriversLicense.pdf
Students without a Wisconsin drivers license or a Wisconsin photo ID would need to obtain
either one to vote. Those students and young adults living away from home but retaining their
permanent home address on their drivers license need to provide proof of residence to vote prior
to registration under current laws. Because the drivers license is a valid ID, regardless of
address, few if any in this population would have a photo ID with a current address. These
individuals may have a Wisconsin or out-of-state drivers license but not one with a current
address. At UWM, Marquette University, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a total of
12,624 students live in residence halls, but only 280 (2 percent) have drivers licenses with these
dorms’ addresses. All others require special handling to vote under proposed and current
legislation.

quote:

Absentee Voting Eligibility

A voter may cast an absentee ballot if he or she



• WILL BE ABSENT FROM THE COUNTY on election day
  
• IS ILL OR HAS A PHYSICAL DISABILITY that prevents a trip to the polling place
  
• IS A REGISTERED ALABAMA VOTER LIVING OUTSIDE THE COUNTY, such as a member of the armed forces, a voter employed outside the United States, a college student, or a spouse or child of such a person
  
• IS AN APPOINTED ELECTION OFFICER OR POLL WATCHER at a polling place other than his or her regular polling place
  
• WORKS A REQUIRED SHIFT, 10-HOURS OR MORE, that coincides with polling hours

quote:

Absentee ballot application

To obtain an absentee ballot, write or visit the local Absentee Election Manager (usually the Circuit Clerk), request an absentee ballot, and provide the following:



• name and residential address (or other such information in order to verify voter registration)
  
• election for which the ballot is requested
  
• reason for absence from polls on election day
  
• party choice, if the election is a party primary. (It is not necessary to give a party choice for a general election; however, in a party primary a voter may participate in only one political party's primary; thus a choice must be designated so that the appropriate ballot can be provided. If the voter declines or fails to designate a choice for a primary or primary runoff ballot, the absentee election manager may send only the ballot for constitutional amendments.)
  
• address to which the ballot should be mailed
  
• voter signature (If a mark is made in place of a signature, it must be witnessed)



The absentee ballot application must be returned to the Absentee Election Manager by the voter in person (or by the voter's designee in the case of medical emergency voting) or by U.S. Mail. No absentee ballot application may be mailed in the same envelope as another voter's absentee ballot application.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
....look in the mirror mister, u are not in any way the target of this law. u never have under any law have to change ur name, nor have to deal with any of the laws provisions. u are a member of the least likely demographic ANY ID law would apply to. Go figure.

Uh, you're black. Fine. Do you have a Driver's License? If I can't say anything because I'm not a target of the law, and you have a Driver's License or State ID, then, you, sir, may also butt out. You can't truly think that just because this law doesn't pertain to me that I have no standing to say anything. Every person in my District that votes who should not be allowed to vote debases my vote. The same goes for every single US Citizen here. Do you say anything to Tweakabelle when she comments on US events, politics and policies? Nope. Is she a US Citizen? Okay, I'll admit that I don't know if she is and is currently residing Down Under, or if she's not a US Citizen and lives Down Under. Either way, most of these laws aren't going to affect her, either. But, you don't have anything to say to her.

quote:

itsSIRtou

if its not about about voter suppression, its awfully funny that its the functional end result.
And actually no I dont have any problem with a GOOD law that works for everybody.... Voter ID laws dont fit that description

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
According to you. Interestingly enough, the law does not say that all minorities, poor people and senior citizens need to show picture ID, does it? This law will work for everybody. And, are you going to tell me that adding a 5.6% tax on the wealthy to pay for Obamacare is going to work for everybody?

quote:

itsSIRtou
u on the other hand have yet to really offer anything other than repetitive questions. no real proof other than to keep asking the same lame question.

So... let Me understand ur statement "truly only suppress fraudulent voting" because that means that to u.... the poor, the disabled, veterans, and the old... AND anyone who have any issues with a birth certificate even if they were born & lived their entire lives in the USA are frauds as voters & worthy of suppression?
AND....Do so just so u can solve a problem that doesnt exist?

quote:

Once again VOTERID is a solution looking for a GOP problem to solve and the fact that even u are now only bleating one line "how do we know...." that has been answered multiple times already..... WE ALLREADY KNOW..... THE CURRENT WAYS TO SUPPORT WHO GETS TO VOTE ARE SUFFICENT AND COST EFFECTIVE TO HANDLE ANY CURRENT ELECTION. and sir, u know it. u've been given a plethora of links and references to support the contention that this is nothing BUTT a republican ploy to suppress voters who do not traditionally vote GOP.

quote:

Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.

quote:

u on the other hand have yet to really offer anything other than repetitive questions. no real proof that there IS a voter fraud problem in the first place.

quote:

This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats. ... Of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000.

quote:


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, 20% of the total states had some dealing with voter fraud.

quote:

So... let Me fully understand that ur statement "truly only suppress fraudulent voting" means that to u.... the poor, the disabled, veterans, and the old... AND anyone who have any issues with a birth certificate even if they were born & lived their entire lives in the USA are frauds as voters & worthy of suppression since its been proven multiple times that the only real persons affected by the voterID laws are those people who DO NOT traditionally vote GOP?

quote:

"There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of a state's interest in counting only eligible voters' votes," wrote liberal Justice John Paul Stevens for a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court's 2008 decision upholding Indiana's ID law, the toughest in the nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
What has Tweakabelle got to do with u being the demographic for u not being the target of these laws?? and the last thing I would tell u to do is butt out.... (wise up, yes! butt out no, - Im a Liberal, Im for ur being free to respectfully say whatever u want.. (...untill the GOP/santorum desides that CollarMe is a "hardcore" website and has it shut down.) I dont have anything to say to her because Im directly answering u. In ur zeal to ID people Im surprised u didnt get on her and asking her to say where she is... (Id laugh at her response to u getting in her personal biz-ness)..... what are u buggin Me about it for?

quote:

itsSIRtou
of course it would be totally stupid for it to mention race in any form at all,...come on, even u know that..... BUTT, as ur conceding to My point with ur evasive comment about Obamacare, I'll let the fact that THE ONLY PEOPLE THESE LAW FUNCTIONALLY AFFECT ARE THE CLASSES OF PEOPLE WHO TYPICALLY DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN stand on its own. thank u

quote:

quote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/why_americans_support_voter_id_laws_112546.html

quote:

Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.

...again, thanks for supporting the fact that Blacks were affected by the IDlaw.... hmm, No mention of the white voter turnout or the fact that ALL voter turnout being higher then too because of the stakes in the elections? hmmm? Or is it that white GOP voters were largely unaffected by the new ID law?

quote:

quote:

This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats. ... Of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000.

quote:


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, 20% of the total states had some dealing with voter fraud.

I dont know about the other states but here in Minnesota, both the governors & senate races had AUTOMATIC RECOUNTS due to the closeness of the margin of victory. Now to call that a voter fraud case is at best a serious GOP spin on the facts since both elections were won by Democrats.

quote:

quote:


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/10/poll-democrats-and-republicans-support-a-voter-id-check-law
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/03/17/opinion/doc4f6537efb60e1648545975.txt
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/alabama_democrat_artur_davis_flips_on_voter_id_but_wont_say_who_he_saw_committing_fraud.php
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/20/setting-the-record-straight-on-lefts-war-against-voter-id
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/among-hispanics-strong-support-voter-id
http://www.civitasreview.com/politicians/democratic-rhode-island-legislature-enacts-voter-id-so-why-cant-nc/
http://www.golocalworcester.com/politics/Voter-ID-Myths-and-other-Fairy-Tales/

SO.... u go out and get opinions from conservative spinsters to make ur point?? REALLY??

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
What has Tweakabelle got to do with u being the demographic for u not being the target of these laws?? and the last thing I would tell u to do is butt out.... (wise up, yes! butt out no, - Im a Liberal, Im for ur being free to respectfully say whatever u want.. (...untill the GOP/santorum desides that CollarMe is a "hardcore" website and has it shut down.) I dont have anything to say to her because Im directly answering u. In ur zeal to ID people Im surprised u didnt get on her and asking her to say where she is... (Id laugh at her response to u getting in her personal biz-ness)..... what are u buggin Me about it for?

Her whereabouts have as much to do with her being able to argue as my not being targeted by the law. That some crazy shit, innit?

quote:

itsSIRtou
of course it would be totally stupid for it to mention race in any form at all,...come on, even u know that..... BUTT, as ur conceding to My point with ur evasive comment about Obamacare, I'll let the fact that THE ONLY PEOPLE THESE LAW FUNCTIONALLY AFFECT ARE THE CLASSES OF PEOPLE WHO TYPICALLY DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN stand on its own. thank u

Now, if only you would have read the links I posted below, your crazy rant would be over.

quote:

quote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/27/why_americans_support_voter_id_laws_112546.html

quote:

Laws requiring photo IDs suppress minority voting, Democrats charge. The facts say otherwise. In Georgia, black voter turnout for the midterm election in 2006 was 42.9 percent. After Georgia passed photo ID, black turnout in the 2010 midterm rose to 50.4 percent. Black turnout also rose in Indiana and Mississippi after photo IDs were required.

...again, thanks for supporting the fact that Blacks were affected by the IDlaw.... hmm, No mention of the white voter turnout or the fact that ALL voter turnout being higher then too because of the stakes in the elections? hmmm? Or is it that white GOP voters were largely unaffected by the new ID law?

Yes, black voter turnout was affected by the law. It increased voter turnout. Damn law. And, the reason the article didn't mention what happened to white, hispanic, or asian voter turnout is because it was a direct response to the rhetoric of ID Laws suppressing black voter turnout. Had Jack Kelly compared 2006 turnout to 2008 turnout, I'd not have quoted it because Presidential elections are always higher than midterms (at least they have been for my vote-eligibility). The point that GA's voter ID law hasn't had a negative effect on black voter turnout seems to be lost on you.

quote:

quote:

This year there have been investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. In all but one case, the alleged fraudsters were Democrats. ... Of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000.

quote:


ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, 20% of the total states had some dealing with voter fraud.

I dont know about the other states but here in Minnesota, both the governors & senate races had AUTOMATIC RECOUNTS due to the closeness of the margin of victory. Now to call that a voter fraud case is at best a serious GOP spin on the facts since both elections were won by Democrats.

This isn't about internal Automatic Recounts. Ohio has settings for that, too. That's not what was meant and you know it.

quote:

quote:


http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2011/06/10/poll-democrats-and-republicans-support-a-voter-id-check-law
http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/03/17/opinion/doc4f6537efb60e1648545975.txt
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/alabama_democrat_artur_davis_flips_on_voter_id_but_wont_say_who_he_saw_committing_fraud.php
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/20/setting-the-record-straight-on-lefts-war-against-voter-id
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/among-hispanics-strong-support-voter-id
http://www.civitasreview.com/politicians/democratic-rhode-island-legislature-enacts-voter-id-so-why-cant-nc/
http://www.golocalworcester.com/politics/Voter-ID-Myths-and-other-Fairy-Tales/

SO.... u go out and get opinions from conservative spinsters to make ur point?? REALLY??

So, because of a source, the information isn't valid? See now, you aren't even attempting to make any points. All you are doing is ridiculing valid points. How about knocking my points out of the park based on the merits of the points?

This is typical liberal garbage. Can't build a counter argument based on logic? Ridicule the sources.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
....Ive yet to see u confront Tweakabelle, with YOUR issue with her, so IF/when u do, I'll comment then IF I feel like it..... otherwise leave her out of our little chat here.... and once again, her location to ME has nothing to do with ur being in the demographic least likely to be affected by these laws. if u want to still make it a sub-issue, good luck to u with her about it.

quote:

..... after all the links u've blown off as nothing in the prior pages of this thread u expect to have ur links accepted as gospel? REALLY?? Look who's talking about "typical" ..... look man, I'd ask u the same thing about all the links that Myself and others have given u throughout this thread. We who dont like this laws have repeatedly given u links and in My case the direct feelings of the people in MY communities feelings about this and u've blown off almost every valid point anyone's made on here. u cant even concede one ovious point.

quote:

Ive treated ur opinions & political position with respect. I expect NO LESS of u...
I know u want to force feed this to us all but... if ur going to resort to name calling Im done with u ....NOW

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)