RE: photo id required

RE: photo id required (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 1:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'm surprised sometimes just how little people understand the 4th Amendment. The founding fathers did not believe companies would EVER become as powerful and dominanting as the Goverment or Church. They wouldn't even know what a 'company town' was in the country for another sixty years! So yes, when they drafted this amendement, they didnt have commerical drugstores or groceries in mind for its purpose. This amendment was to keep the goverment from prying into people's lives for any reason except on "...probable cause..." that a law was 'being breached'/'had been breached'. Which is why the goverment cant just enter your home 'just cause'; they require a warrent to search the property (such documents often state what and where is to be searched). None of which I feel is the slightest bit relevant to someone simply having to show who they are when deciding the course of a nation. Nothing unreasonable about that. I thought theu showed who they were when they checked in and said I am joe Blow on Blow st. IDs would solve the issue of multiple people coming to the polls and saying theywere the same person....doesnt happen. Oh wait it happened in TX twice in 10 yrs. there is nothing unreasonable about passing a law that says we have to finger print them all too, or they have to wear red shirts or weare hats to vote and all will do just as muxch to prevent fraud and imo it's be cheaprer to insist they wear red shirts to stop the non existent fraud. it's unreasonable because it is unneeded. placeing roadblocks to voting that are unneeded is voter suppression. if there was fraud and people coming to the polls and claiming they were someone they werent you'd be right

mnottertail -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 2:14:06 PM)
Well, Willards folks could come in flip-flops and luggage saying moving to China, Pauls in tinfoil hats, and Obama's in Muu Muus. Everybody OK with that? Discussion? Anyone have issues?

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 2:31:56 PM)
quote: Get off my ass. I do my homework. The point wasn't that they were all illegit. The point is that they weren't verified. I even mentioned them not all being fraud. Scuri... If I was on "your ass' you would know it. Don't confuse my rejection of a poorly written article. And if the Secretary of State deems an absurd request like "check every new registration from last year, we allege they are fradulent" and say No proof was offered in an affidavit .. or maybe even no affidavit at all was offered. Hell, from that article I don't know that there was even a legitimate challenge. Sorry, but just pasting in a badly written article doesn't answer my questions. quote: quote: Dude, no offense but I have lived here in my city for nearing 20 years and I have up until this year been a volunteer poll worker and have attended all the meetings and educational opportunities that go along with the role. Tell me this what has the follow-up data (elections subsequent to 2008) shown? Meaning did 700k voters just disappear? Or hasn't there been that kind of effort on the part of these concerned republicans? I'll have to get back to you on that one. I was not able to find that data quickly and don't have the time right now. My guess is it doesn't exist. It has the look and feel of other bogus challenges that have been lodged by the GOP in previous elections around the country. There is never however, any follow through. Till I see otherwise, I have to assume this is the same kind of deal.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 2:34:19 PM)
quote: Under that logic anyone over 18 would be able to sue anytime they get carded for cigarettes. Yeah, it doesn't work that way. Are you fucking serious????? You can equate voter's rights with legalized vices??? Forget my previous concerns... now I know you've got no real clue.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 2:37:05 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Where'd you invent THAT lightbulb??? What a riot. Give ya three guesses why your statement just doesn't cut it. Study the concepts of license and right. I certainly hope it was an LED lightbulb.... Hahahahaha .... I think we both know he'd have a coronary if he ever found himself shopping for smart/green/efficient anything[:D]

joether -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 10:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'm surprised sometimes just how little people understand the 4th Amendment. The founding fathers did not believe companies would EVER become as powerful and dominanting as the Goverment or Church. They wouldn't even know what a 'company town' was in the country for another sixty years! So yes, when they drafted this amendement, they didnt have commerical drugstores or groceries in mind for its purpose. This amendment was to keep the goverment from prying into people's lives for any reason except on "...probable cause..." that a law was 'being breached'/'had been breached'. Which is why the goverment cant just enter your home 'just cause'; they require a warrent to search the property (such documents often state what and where is to be searched). None of which I feel is the slightest bit relevant to someone simply having to show who they are when deciding the course of a nation. Nothing unreasonable about that. I really dont care what you consider relevant or not. My 4th Amendment trumps your photo ID law cramp everyday of the year and twice on leap year! If a Mr. Oliver Wilson shows up and states he lives at 113 Emerson Drive, apartment 4; and such an individual exists on the registration, the polling person could ask for some ID. To which Mr. Wilson explains he walked to the polling location and forgot his ID at home but is that person. If the polling person is not convienced they can ask the police officer on duty to check the person out. To which the officer asks to see some ID from Mr. Oliver of any kind. From there it would require the police officer to contact his station and request someone to go to that area and ask around for a physical discription of Mr. Wilson. Yes it sounds cumbersone, annoying and flat out time-consuming in an age of instant gratification by most Americans. But that is how the amendment was written and implied. I didn't write the Amendment nor did I vote on it. If you dont like the amendment, I suggest you start convincing people to have it either removed or modified to suit your whims. Until such time, I dont have to show my photo ID when I go and vote. Hell, the fact that I drive there, would suggest to someone that I have my driver's license on me. As driving without a license in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will get your car impounded for a month at the RMV! So why dont I just show it? Its the principle that the fourth is just as important to me as the other twenty-six amendments! Another way of dealing with the chance of someone voting in one polling location and then voting else where is to use the strategy in Iraq's first elections in 2005 after we took over: Purple Thumbs! This wouldnt violate the 4th amendment (a person's identity is still private), but would show clearly who voted and who didnt in your workplace and community for a few days. This I could consider as a comprimise. But not Purple. How about Red, White, and Blue?

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/9/2012 10:26:58 PM)
quote: I really dont care what you consider relevant or not. My 4th Amendment trumps your photo ID law cramp everyday of the year and twice on leap year! If a Mr. Oliver Wilson shows up and states he lives at 113 Emerson Drive, apartment 4; and such an individual exists on the registration, the polling person could ask for some ID. To which Mr. Wilson explains he walked to the polling location and forgot his ID at home but is that person. If the polling person is not convienced they can ask the police officer on duty to check the person out. To which the officer asks to see some ID from Mr. Oliver of any kind. From there it would require the police officer to contact his station and request someone to go to that area and ask around for a physical discription of Mr. Wilson. This in Massachusetts at least is the scene as it has to play out under the law, both under general and constitutional law. And the only thing they can really do is stick you with one of those provisional ballots, which MAY mean your vote isn't counted or considered unless the race is REALLY tight. What I would like to know is what exactly happened in Ohio... Scuri can't really quantify based on what he's read, but I remember (I think) hearing Ohio does provisional ballots also, which if they weren't counted, might mean Obama SLAUGHTERED McCain in 08.

DesideriScuri -> RE: photo id required (5/10/2012 7:33:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Scuri... If I was on "your ass' you would know it. Don't confuse my rejection of a poorly written article. And if the Secretary of State deems an absurd request like "check every new registration from last year, we allege they are fradulent" and say No proof was offered in an affidavit .. or maybe even no affidavit at all was offered. Hell, from that article I don't know that there was even a legitimate challenge. Sorry, but just pasting in a badly written article doesn't answer my questions. The problem here, is that 700k registrations hadn't been verified. Cursory glances showed 200k incorrect registrations. Federal mandates are that there is a system in place to recheck those registrations, but she didn't because the mandate to recheck, just that there was as system. That she didn't re-check the ones that came up incorrect was a bigger issue, imo. quote: Tell me this what has the follow-up data (elections subsequent to 2008) shown? Meaning did 700k voters just disappear? Or hasn't there been that kind of effort on the part of these concerned republicans? quote: I'll have to get back to you on that one. I was not able to find that data quickly and don't have the time right now. My guess is it doesn't exist. It has the look and feel of other bogus challenges that have been lodged by the GOP in previous elections around the country. There is never however, any follow through. Till I see otherwise, I have to assume this is the same kind of deal. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Research/electResultsMain/HistoricalElectionComparisons/Voter%20Turnout%20in%20General%20Elections.aspx Voter registrations (and this could have been edited afterwards) 2000 - 7,531,555 2001 - 7,153,796 2002 - 7,113,826 2003 - 7,138,932 2004 - 7,972,826 2005 - 7,684,320 2006 - 7,860,052 2007 - 7,772,654 2008 - 8,291,239 2009 - 8,041,612 2010 - 8,037,806 Records show spikes during Presidential elections, which is not out of the ordinary. Of course, there is no cross-check available to compare the "official" election results to this list. Seems as if that data is recorded in a spotty manner over the course of every year I looked at (and those years included control by both parties). So, there is no conclusive evidence of impropriety.

Raiikun -> RE: photo id required (5/10/2012 7:41:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether I really dont care what you consider relevant or not. Doesn't matter if you care, it doesn't change it's relevancy. quote: My 4th Amendment trumps your photo ID law cramp everyday of the year and twice on leap year! Apparently not, considering the number of states that have photo ID laws in place now. And the only instances I can find where it's gone to court, the court has agreed that voter ID laws do not violate the 4th Amendment.

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/10/2012 10:01:23 AM)
1st ... thanks for being a man of your word and going after the statistical data and even more so for posting it despite it's not supporting the concerns you have. You've demonstrated character here that the neo-cons could learn from. quote: The problem here, is that 700k registrations hadn't been verified. Cursory glances showed 200k incorrect registrations. Federal mandates are that there is a system in place to recheck those registrations, but she didn't because the mandate to recheck, just that there was as system. That she didn't re-check the ones that came up incorrect was a bigger issue, imo. I understand what your concern is, really I do, but what I am concerned with is that these so-called 'cursory' examination of the ballots amounts to anything more than some slug of an 'observer' at the polling place looking over the voter and not liking the "look" of the voter and making a check next to their name. You do know that in past elections the GOP observers have had workshops on profiling voters, right? If these "glances" at the registrations occurred before the election and in the offices of the respective town and city clerks (which is where the paper registrations exist), that's not legally anything I can contest under the current system, EVEN THOUGH it may be the exact process Brown is trying to screw voters with here in Massachusetts as I type. If on the other hand, these concerns were raised by Observers at the polling place. I'd say it's a royal joke. These people are trained to throw a stick in the spokes and it doesn't reflect right or wrong. And if the SOC was basing her refusal on the polling place antics, I can see why. quote: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Research/electResultsMain/HistoricalElectionComparisons/Voter%20Turnout%20in%20General%20Elections.aspx Voter registrations (and this could have been edited afterwards) 2000 - 7,531,555 2001 - 7,153,796 2002 - 7,113,826 2003 - 7,138,932 2004 - 7,972,826 2005 - 7,684,320 2006 - 7,860,052 2007 - 7,772,654 2008 - 8,291,239 2009 - 8,041,612 2010 - 8,037,806 Records show spikes during Presidential elections, which is not out of the ordinary. Of course, there is no cross-check available to compare the "official" election results to this list. Seems as if that data is recorded in a spotty manner over the course of every year I looked at (and those years included control by both parties). So, there is no conclusive evidence of impropriety. Given that they're Presidential Election years, I would expect the kind of mild spikes we're seeing here. It doesn't really raise any concern for me. The numbers are of course smaller for Massachusetts, but the ebb and flow is very similar. Again, thanks for being honest about the data.

Mupainurpleasure -> RE: photo id required (5/10/2012 10:10:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Scuri... If I was on "your ass' you would know it. Don't confuse my rejection of a poorly written article. And if the Secretary of State deems an absurd request like "check every new registration from last year, we allege they are fradulent" and say No proof was offered in an affidavit .. or maybe even no affidavit at all was offered. Hell, from that article I don't know that there was even a legitimate challenge. Sorry, but just pasting in a badly written article doesn't answer my questions. The problem here, is that 700k registrations hadn't been verified. Cursory glances showed 200k incorrect registrations. Federal mandates are that there is a system in place to recheck those registrations, but she didn't because the mandate to recheck, just that there was as system. That she didn't re-check the ones that came up incorrect was a bigger issue, imo. quote: Tell me this what has the follow-up data (elections subsequent to 2008) shown? Meaning did 700k voters just disappear? Or hasn't there been that kind of effort on the part of these concerned republicans? quote: I'll have to get back to you on that one. I was not able to find that data quickly and don't have the time right now. My guess is it doesn't exist. It has the look and feel of other bogus challenges that have been lodged by the GOP in previous elections around the country. There is never however, any follow through. Till I see otherwise, I have to assume this is the same kind of deal. http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/elections/Research/electResultsMain/HistoricalElectionComparisons/Voter%20Turnout%20in%20General%20Elections.aspx Voter registrations (and this could have been edited afterwards) 2000 - 7,531,555 2001 - 7,153,796 2002 - 7,113,826 2003 - 7,138,932 2004 - 7,972,826 2005 - 7,684,320 2006 - 7,860,052 2007 - 7,772,654 2008 - 8,291,239 2009 - 8,041,612 2010 - 8,037,806 Records show spikes during Presidential elections, which is not out of the ordinary. Of course, there is no cross-check available to compare the "official" election results to this list. Seems as if that data is recorded in a spotty manner over the course of every year I looked at (and those years included control by both parties). So, there is no conclusive evidence of impropriety. I won'ty argue your point. I will say IDs dont address the issue and if there had been voting fraud there is just to much light looking for it to remain hidden. I would bet Mickey Mouse when registered never tries to vote(extreme case) the other thing is if flags at the polling statinon if suddenly there are 20 different names a t the same address don;t you think? I am siure the observers would of scooped right in. I wouold feel more comfortable with the observers if they were challenging in a way close to the state demographics. You can understand why profling in challenges stinks of trying to slow voting right?

DesideriScuri -> RE: photo id required (5/10/2012 1:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper 1st ... thanks for being a man of your word and going after the statistical data and even more so for posting it despite it's not supporting the concerns you have. You've demonstrated character here that the neo-cons could learn from. Have been since Day 1 here. You're welcome, and thanks. quote: I understand what your concern is, really I do, but what I am concerned with is that these so-called 'cursory' examination of the ballots amounts to anything more than some slug of an 'observer' at the polling place looking over the voter and not liking the "look" of the voter and making a check next to their name. And if the SOC was basing her refusal on the polling place antics, I can see why. The cursory examinations were done by Jennifer Brunner's staff (State Election Board), not some random poll worker. Plus, the issue was raised about 2 weeks prior to the election, not election day. Re-check procedure was hand-checking, of which there was truly no time. That there were registrations from Jan. that needed rechecking 10 months later, is a concern. quote: Given that they're Presidential Election years, I would expect the kind of mild spikes we're seeing here. It doesn't really raise any concern for me. The numbers are of course smaller for Massachusetts, but the ebb and flow is very similar. Again, thanks for being honest about the data. What you are going to find out now, is that originally, I went from 2004 - 2010, but noticed the '04 results being quite a bit higher. Instead of leaving it be, I took data from 2000 - 2010. Since the data had the same "flow" before and after 2006 - 2010, it does not raise any concerns on my part. And, to point out, within my data set, 2000 - 2006 was under a Republican Governor, 2007 - 2010 was under a Democrat Governor. I hate being wrong. Of that, you can be sure. But, I hate being false more. I have corrected mistakes on here and apologized for them. I've done that without anyone calling me out, too. I've corrected people on here even when I agree with the stance, if the argument is false. Thanks for recognizing it and acknowledging it. I guess there's a first time for everything, right? lol

joether -> RE: photo id required (5/11/2012 5:17:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: My 4th Amendment trumps your photo ID law cramp everyday of the year and twice on leap year! Apparently not, considering the number of states that have photo ID laws in place now. And the only instances I can find where it's gone to court, the court has agreed that voter ID laws do not violate the 4th Amendment. Yeah, you found one instance. Goes right up there with the 'rampant' and 'out of control' voter fraud seen year after year. Its funny if you think about it. How conservatives can be manipulated simply by invoking the Fear Card. They'll give up all their rights instantly and without question, so long as the person stating it is seen as a conservative and Republican. How quickly did conservatives give up the whole 'cruel and unusual punishment' with prisoners during the Bush Admin? Snap of fingers... Why should the states take on additional costs, for something that doesnt have any scientific basis for the paranoia? You nor anyone else has shown that voter fraud is anything more than tiny and isolated (and irrelavent on the final vote). Yet, feel that we should not put funds forward to study Climate Change that has mountains of data supporting the idea. Yeap, conservatives hard at work, wasting taxpayer money on stupid things while bitching at everyone else for the stuff on the budget. I'm just curious of that one instance you found, if there is some source material to it? I'm sure you not 'talking out of your butt' to make your arguement, right? Since the 4th amendment does protect against unreasonable searchs and seizures. Why should I have to show my photo ID? I have no reason to lie about who I am and where I live. The RMV knows what I look like, the US Postal Office knows where I live; the FBI has BOTH sets of information.

joether -> RE: photo id required (5/11/2012 5:25:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I hate being wrong. Of that, you can be sure. But, I hate being false more. I have corrected mistakes on here and apologized for them. I've done that without anyone calling me out, too. I've corrected people on here even when I agree with the stance, if the argument is false. Thanks for recognizing it and acknowledging it. I guess there's a first time for everything, right? lol Admiting to being wrong is pretty damn brave on this forum! Most people, after they realize they are wrong, would simply continue the conversation rather than admit the reality. Hat's off to you, DS!

SternSkipper -> RE: photo id required (5/11/2012 8:00:19 AM)
quote: What you are going to find out now, is that originally, I went from 2004 - 2010, but noticed the '04 results being quite a bit higher. Instead of leaving it be, I took data from 2000 - 2010. Since the data had the same "flow" before and after 2006 - 2010, it does not raise any concerns on my part. And, to point out, within my data set, 2000 - 2006 was under a Republican Governor, 2007 - 2010 was under a Democrat Governor. If it were any year but the 04 election, I would say fine. But it's a historic fact that in Battleground states, both acorn and Rove's army were out registering record numbers of voters. And I simply find preposterous that typically people get all lit up about acorn but aren't even aware Karl Rove's re-election committee had as many, and possibly more people actively registering voters. The sad truth is that there were that man apathetic voters in the big states. quote: I hate being wrong. Of that, you can be sure. But, I hate being false more. I have corrected mistakes on here and apologized for them. I've done that without anyone calling me out, too. I've corrected people on here even when I agree with the stance, if the argument is false. Well, in this case I can't say you're either. But with that said. I still think that the ID plan solves nothing. And I also feel it will in the long run decrease the number of legitimate votes. And I won't even go into who is counting on that as the result. quote: Thanks for recognizing it and acknowledging it. I guess there's a first time for everything, right? lol Nah, I've seen you right before... I but in those cases there wasn't any issue for me to debate. And I honestly don't remember if I ever challenged you for data. So in that case yeah, the first time rule sorta works[:D]

Raiikun -> RE: photo id required (5/11/2012 3:51:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper You can equate voter's rights with legalized vices??? No, I didn't. It was an analogy. I wish people would stop trying to read analogies as if they're trying to equate two different things. Which is what makes this so ironic and laughable: quote: Forget my previous concerns... now I know you've got no real clue.

thompsonx -> RE: photo id required (5/11/2012 4:07:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper You can equate voter's rights with legalized vices??? No, I didn't. It was an analogy. I wish people would stop trying to read analogies as if they're trying to equate two different things. Perhaps you should learn what analogy means. a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA noun, plural a·nal·o·gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

AngelOfSilence -> RE: photo id required (5/11/2012 11:10:20 PM)
Photo ID ≠ Voter ID.

Raiikun -> RE: photo id required (5/12/2012 3:48:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper You can equate voter's rights with legalized vices??? No, I didn't. It was an analogy. I wish people would stop trying to read analogies as if they're trying to equate two different things. Perhaps you should learn what analogy means. a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA noun, plural a·nal·o·gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. Perhaps you should, as the defintion you posted doesn't disagree with me. A similarity =/= equal. What's the similarity in my analogy? They are two things in which a person's identity is relevant. That's it. Any kind of "equating" the two is entirely an invention. Edit: Now if you wanted to argue that it was a weak analogy, that would be an entirely different beast, and I'd probably agree... with just pointing out that the absurdity I was highlighting with the analogy was just so...absurd that I didn't feel a stronger analogy was needed to highlight it.

thompsonx -> RE: photo id required (5/12/2012 3:43:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper You can equate voter's rights with legalized vices??? No, I didn't. It was an analogy. I wish people would stop trying to read analogies as if they're trying to equate two different things. Perhaps you should learn what analogy means. a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee] Show IPA noun, plural a·nal·o·gies. 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump. Perhaps you should, as the defintion you posted doesn't disagree with me. A similarity =/= equal. What's the similarity in my analogy? They are two things in which a person's identity is relevant. That's it. Any kind of "equating" the two is entirely an invention. Edit: Now if you wanted to argue that it was a weak analogy, that would be an entirely different beast, and I'd probably agree... with just pointing out that the absurdity I was highlighting with the analogy was just so...absurd that I didn't feel a stronger analogy was needed to highlight it. [8\|]

Page: << < prev 7 8 9 [10] 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02