Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: photo id required


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: photo id required Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 2:28:27 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
All these laws will do is disenfranchise honest people who are poor or disabled.


Oh, bullshit. That's such a crock of crap.

It's funny how fervently right wingers believe that scenario when it comes to gun control laws. Either laws will be evaded by criminals or they won't be, you cannot have it both ways.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 2:42:12 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion
Cut the shit about the hassles and "expense" of getting a photo ID. Plain and simple, The Democrats want no ID voting so they can "stuff" the ballot boxes.


Ok, how about the issue that it violates my 4th Amendment Right?

Why should I have to show my photo ID? I stated whom I am and where I live. If you dont think its true, its up to you to prove the burden of proof. Course, if your wrong (which you will be), I'll sue you for every little penny you've ever had in your life and the next ten lives from your current! Still want to challenge me?


(in reply to papassion)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 3:16:27 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
Yeah... that sounds a lot like your state was lax in construction of registration laws. So fix it with a decent waiting period like the majority of states,


Interestingly enough, the new rules were put in place early in 2008. Prior to that, you couldn't register within 30 days of the election (to give time for validation), and couldn't vote until your registration was validated. R's screamed foul when the law was passed. D's were working to to not "disenfranchise voters" and Brunner refused to check all the registrations, allowing votes to count without validated registrations.

But, hey. Whatever, right? And, I'm not saying that what happened in Ohio is what is happening everywhere, or anywhere, else.

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/10/brunner_says_voter_registratio.html

    COLUMBUS -- It is impossible to cross-check nearly 700,000 new or revised voter registrations filed this year without crashing Ohio's registration system, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said Thursday. She added that the entire system will have to be rebuilt after next week's election so that fraud can be more easily detected.
    ...
    Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver's license or Social Security digit on the applications.
    But the Ohio Republican Party suggested that some of those cases could amount to voter fraud and that Brunner, as the state's top elections officer, was obligated to double-check the information. Brunner argued that federal rules only require the state to have a system in place for double-checking registrations but do not require her to make the checks.
    Brunner said in recent days she has consulted with contractors who have concluded that there is no way the current voter registration system can handle massive checks of newly registered voters. Instead, Brunner said she was informed that each of the 700,000 registrations would have to be hand-checked one-by-one, which could not be completed before Tuesday's election and which Brunner is not obligated to do.





_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 3:20:07 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
All these laws will do is disenfranchise honest people who are poor or disabled.

Oh, bullshit. That's such a crock of crap.

It's funny how fervently right wingers believe that scenario when it comes to gun control laws. Either laws will be evaded by criminals or they won't be, you cannot have it both ways.


You, again, are assigning a belief to me that is simply not true.



_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 9:38:47 AM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Interestingly enough, the new rules were put in place early in 2008. Prior to that, you couldn't register within 30 days of the election (to give time for validation), and couldn't vote until your registration was validated. R's screamed foul when the law was passed. D's were working to to not "disenfranchise voters" and Brunner refused to check all the registrations, allowing votes to count without validated registrations.

But, hey. Whatever, right? And, I'm not saying that what happened in Ohio is what is happening everywhere, or anywhere, else.


Interestingly enough as you put it... I have never seen any statistically backed statement that there were any illegitimate votes counted in the 2008 elections. And if you harken back to the earlier two Presidential elections, you'll of course remember how there were ridiculous lines at precincts in ohio because they had the same screaming Rs you refer to slowing down the process of legit voters clearing the check in. That was a matter of national headlines.
But if you can show me some documented statistic stating that there was voter fraud on ANY scale that effected the election, I will be happy to have a look and tell you what I think.
I STILL say that what Brown is pulling in Massachusetts is an ACTUAL affront to voter's rights and if a person REALLY cared about the issue beyond paying it lip service, they'd be a lot more outraged about that practice. And get this... I just heard Sean Bielat, P.O.S. THREE TIME LOSER in Barney Frank's district (which was one of the first Gerrymandered districts to handicap this asshole with a town that has small city that has a significant concentration of repulicans) is now considering the same tactic because, AND GET THIS ... CAUSE IT"S FUCKING HYSTERICAL TO ANY HOMO SAPIEN with a full set of neurons firing ... He says "I find it hard to believe it took me six months to get enough signatures to get on the ballot . And my opponent only announced a few weeks ago and already has enough signatures to be on the ballot". He's told at least one reporter that (a guy I went to college with), who laughingly told him about how he'd covered two of his opponent's fundraising events attended by a couple of huge crowds. And went on to say he didn't feel there was an issue and to call him back if his 'research'.... I am sure there are other reporters this guy has lobbed calls to. But nothing published. And here's why. He's the youngest Kennedy to enter the race in his family's back yard... HELLO... His district includes Cape Cod and all of Southeastern Mass. In my home town in RI, nobody even seriously ran against Patches Kennedy. What's funny is that Joe Kennedy III's people didn't really rub the snot's nose in it by reporting how long it took to get the 10k signatures they needed (it was actually something like a week, I think).
But regardless, the kid is more qualified and has it in the bag.
Seriously though... you should consider the language in that article you provided. They reach the foregone that there is fraud that has occurred yet at the same time they are saying the SOC hadn't checked the ballots. Could it be that they just alleged ALL the registrations taken that year were illegitimate? I mean 700k is A LOT of votes. I'd be willing to bet that's the total number of registrations taken that year. In each reference to the number there's no actual cite that indicates there's REALLY any problem. And it gets no closer than this
"Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver's license or Social Security digit on the applications. "

Do your homework... in an election year in a populous state, that's fairly normal. And what's also pretty normal is for 99% of those discrepancies to be exactly what's put forth in the article ... MERE TYPOS.
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?


_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 10:12:41 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
All these laws will do is disenfranchise honest people who are poor or disabled.

Oh, bullshit. That's such a crock of crap.

It's funny how fervently right wingers believe that scenario when it comes to gun control laws. Either laws will be evaded by criminals or they won't be, you cannot have it both ways.


You, again, are assigning a belief to me that is simply not true.

So, you favor strict gun control laws. I'll keep that in mind.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 10:20:57 AM   
RacerJim


Posts: 1583
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline
Anyone opposed to voter ID should destroy all photo IDs they have.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 10:40:12 AM   
SternSkipper


Posts: 7546
Joined: 3/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Anyone opposed to voter ID should destroy all photo IDs they have.


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.


_____________________________

Looking forward to The Dead Singing The National Anthem At The World Series.




Tinfoilers Swallow


(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 11:59:57 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Why should I have to show my photo ID? I stated whom I am and where I live. If you dont think its true, its up to you to prove the burden of proof. Course, if your wrong (which you will be), I'll sue you for every little penny you've ever had in your life and the next ten lives from your current! Still want to challenge me?



Under that logic anyone over 18 would be able to sue anytime they get carded for cigarettes.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:37:52 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
Interestingly enough as you put it... I have never seen any statistically backed statement that there were any illegitimate votes counted in the 2008 elections. And if you harken back to the earlier two Presidential elections, you'll of course remember how there were ridiculous lines at precincts in ohio because they had the same screaming Rs you refer to slowing down the process of legit voters clearing the check in. That was a matter of national headlines.
But if you can show me some documented statistic stating that there was voter fraud on ANY scale that effected the election, I will be happy to have a look and tell you what I think.
I STILL say that what Brown is pulling in Massachusetts is an ACTUAL affront to voter's rights and if a person REALLY cared about the issue beyond paying it lip service, they'd be a lot more outraged about that practice. And get this... I just heard Sean Bielat, P.O.S. THREE TIME LOSER in Barney Frank's district (which was one of the first Gerrymandered districts to handicap this asshole with a town that has small city that has a significant concentration of repulicans) is now considering the same tactic because, AND GET THIS ... CAUSE IT"S FUCKING HYSTERICAL TO ANY HOMO SAPIEN with a full set of neurons firing ... He says "I find it hard to believe it took me six months to get enough signatures to get on the ballot . And my opponent only announced a few weeks ago and already has enough signatures to be on the ballot". He's told at least one reporter that (a guy I went to college with), who laughingly told him about how he'd covered two of his opponent's fundraising events attended by a couple of huge crowds. And went on to say he didn't feel there was an issue and to call him back if his 'research'.... I am sure there are other reporters this guy has lobbed calls to. But nothing published. And here's why. He's the youngest Kennedy to enter the race in his family's back yard... HELLO... His district includes Cape Cod and all of Southeastern Mass. In my home town in RI, nobody even seriously ran against Patches Kennedy. What's funny is that Joe Kennedy III's people didn't really rub the snot's nose in it by reporting how long it took to get the 10k signatures they needed (it was actually something like a week, I think).
But regardless, the kid is more qualified and has it in the bag.
Seriously though... you should consider the language in that article you provided. They reach the foregone that there is fraud that has occurred yet at the same time they are saying the SOC hadn't checked the ballots. Could it be that they just alleged ALL the registrations taken that year were illegitimate? I mean 700k is A LOT of votes. I'd be willing to bet that's the total number of registrations taken that year. In each reference to the number there's no actual cite that indicates there's REALLY any problem. And it gets no closer than this
"Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver's license or Social Security digit on the applications. "

Do your homework... in an election year in a populous state, that's fairly normal. And what's also pretty normal is for 99% of those discrepancies to be exactly what's put forth in the article ... MERE TYPOS.


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.

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.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:39:00 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So, you favor strict gun control laws. I'll keep that in mind.


I absolutely support very strict gun controls. You don't want one of them things going off until the trigger is pulled, do you?

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:40:06 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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....

_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to SternSkipper)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:40:45 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Anyone opposed to voter ID should destroy all photo IDs they have.

Why?

(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:43:40 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Why should I have to show my photo ID? I stated whom I am and where I live. If you dont think its true, its up to you to prove the burden of proof. Course, if your wrong (which you will be), I'll sue you for every little penny you've ever had in your life and the next ten lives from your current! Still want to challenge me?



Under that logic anyone over 18 would be able to sue anytime they get carded for cigarettes.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.


It is the law that you must show proof of age to buy cigarettes.
If you have nothing to hide then you should not require the authorities to have a warrant to search your home?
Isn't that the same line of reasoning?

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:46:13 PM   
Mupainurpleasure


Posts: 393
Joined: 4/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

Anyone opposed to voter ID should destroy all photo IDs they have.
So, if someone is oppsosed to gun control should they shoot themselves?

(in reply to RacerJim)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 12:49:53 PM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

It is the law that you must show proof of age to buy cigarettes.



Not exactly.


quote:

If you have nothing to hide then you should not require the authorities to have a warrant to search your home?


Irrelevant.

quote:


Isn't that the same line of reasoning?



No.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 1:03:17 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Why should I have to show my photo ID? I stated whom I am and where I live. If you dont think its true, its up to you to prove the burden of proof. Course, if your wrong (which you will be), I'll sue you for every little penny you've ever had in your life and the next ten lives from your current! Still want to challenge me?

Under that logic anyone over 18 would be able to sue anytime they get carded for cigarettes.

Yeah, it doesn't work that way.


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).

So if the goverment was demanding that you show ID to them directly to by your smokes, THAT, would be struck down in the courts (the Tobacco industry would see to that). Instead, since your buying your smokes through a commerical property, the goverment has stated how and why such information is to be used. The person is not allowed to copy or tamper with your photo ID in anyway; simple check the photo as being you and the date of birth to make sure its in compliance with current laws with regards to age minimals.

But we aren't discussing photo IDs to buy a pack of smokes, are we? No, this thread is about whether the goverment can directly force you to show a photo ID when voting on who will run this nation. Big difference! Oh, a BTW, I've *NEVER* been carded when buying cigeretts (cus I dont smoke) or alochol (did a fair amount in college). People just take a look at my height and bits of grey hair and assume I'm over 21. Never had to show my photo ID when voting.

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 1:07:10 PM   
Mupainurpleasure


Posts: 393
Joined: 4/12/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper
Interestingly enough as you put it... I have never seen any statistically backed statement that there were any illegitimate votes counted in the 2008 elections. And if you harken back to the earlier two Presidential elections, you'll of course remember how there were ridiculous lines at precincts in ohio because they had the same screaming Rs you refer to slowing down the process of legit voters clearing the check in. That was a matter of national headlines.
But if you can show me some documented statistic stating that there was voter fraud on ANY scale that effected the election, I will be happy to have a look and tell you what I think.
I STILL say that what Brown is pulling in Massachusetts is an ACTUAL affront to voter's rights and if a person REALLY cared about the issue beyond paying it lip service, they'd be a lot more outraged about that practice. And get this... I just heard Sean Bielat, P.O.S. THREE TIME LOSER in Barney Frank's district (which was one of the first Gerrymandered districts to handicap this asshole with a town that has small city that has a significant concentration of repulicans) is now considering the same tactic because, AND GET THIS ... CAUSE IT"S FUCKING HYSTERICAL TO ANY HOMO SAPIEN with a full set of neurons firing ... He says "I find it hard to believe it took me six months to get enough signatures to get on the ballot . And my opponent only announced a few weeks ago and already has enough signatures to be on the ballot". He's told at least one reporter that (a guy I went to college with), who laughingly told him about how he'd covered two of his opponent's fundraising events attended by a couple of huge crowds. And went on to say he didn't feel there was an issue and to call him back if his 'research'.... I am sure there are other reporters this guy has lobbed calls to. But nothing published. And here's why. He's the youngest Kennedy to enter the race in his family's back yard... HELLO... His district includes Cape Cod and all of Southeastern Mass. In my home town in RI, nobody even seriously ran against Patches Kennedy. What's funny is that Joe Kennedy III's people didn't really rub the snot's nose in it by reporting how long it took to get the 10k signatures they needed (it was actually something like a week, I think).
But regardless, the kid is more qualified and has it in the bag.
Seriously though... you should consider the language in that article you provided. They reach the foregone that there is fraud that has occurred yet at the same time they are saying the SOC hadn't checked the ballots. Could it be that they just alleged ALL the registrations taken that year were illegitimate? I mean 700k is A LOT of votes. I'd be willing to bet that's the total number of registrations taken that year. In each reference to the number there's no actual cite that indicates there's REALLY any problem. And it gets no closer than this
"Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver's license or Social Security digit on the applications. "

Do your homework... in an election year in a populous state, that's fairly normal. And what's also pretty normal is for 99% of those discrepancies to be exactly what's put forth in the article ... MERE TYPOS.


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.

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.


The thing is with the dollars spent looking for fraud if they had been it would of come out. In TX they had 2 cases of false IDs. In Ohio they had no fraud...tryust me the right would of foiund it they like long and hard because of the myth the election was stolen Here is the real issue:
quote:

Facts speak louder than words. I have been skewered for listening to Fox News. I have been called a coward. Why? I don’t understand this one for speaking what I believe is factual truth.

President Barack Obama is a man with no class. He has proven time and time again he is nothing more than a fraud, cheat and liar.

There are more lobbyists and big money donors working in the White House and have been assigned to government positions than ever before in the history of any other administration. He even has the audacity to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare. He must believe he walks on water.



Evidence shows the last election was stolen. Ballot boxes were stuffed in Philadelphia, New York City, Atlanta and other big cities. Georgia had National Guard units standing by if Obama lost the election, due to the fact there would be rioting in the streets. Was this reported on CBS, NBC or ABC? This was written in an article I read on Fox Nation. (Oops, there’s that name again.)

the irony here being Obama gets small donation Mitts huge ones . Big oil makes an investment

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 1:52:02 PM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: photo id required - 5/9/2012 1:56:44 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
We already know the average voter is a fuckin twatwaffle.  You want a card with a hologram on it to announce it or what?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: photo id required Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.109