RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote

RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (Full Version)

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

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 7:56:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: hope that's not sugar-sweetened Kool-Aid, DC. Not good for your teeth. Come to think of it, the non-sugar sweetened Kool-Aid isn't all that good for you, either. LOL! Speaking of sugar and saccharine, it's sweetly entertaining to see the Kool-Aid image invoked by someone attempting to convince others that the GOP's "voter fraud prevention" laws represent a good-faith effort to protect the nation. Touché! The Kool Aid is that this is only going to impact Democrat supporters, and that it's going to negatively impact a significant number of voters. It doesn't matter if it's a significant number or not. If a law disproportionally impacts law abiding citizens of either party or no party and it cannot be shown to actually solve a problem (or you cannot even show that a problem exists) it is a shitty law and should not be passed.

tazzygirl -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 8:02:37 AM)
Pa. voter ID law on hold for November election http://articles.philly.com/2013-08-18/news/41421150_1_voter-id-voter-suppression-photo-id

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: hope that's not sugar-sweetened Kool-Aid, DC. Not good for your teeth. Come to think of it, the non-sugar sweetened Kool-Aid isn't all that good for you, either. LOL! Speaking of sugar and saccharine, it's sweetly entertaining to see the Kool-Aid image invoked by someone attempting to convince others that the GOP's "voter fraud prevention" laws represent a good-faith effort to protect the nation. Touché! The Kool Aid is that this is only going to impact Democrat supporters, and that it's going to negatively impact a significant number of voters. It doesn't matter if it's a significant number or not. If a law disproportionally impacts law abiding citizens of either party or no party and it cannot be shown to actually solve a problem (or you cannot even show that a problem exists) it is a shitty law and should not be passed. Are you claiming that no one has ever voted fraudulently that requiring an ID would have prevented? quote: Will the law require new employees to enforce? Yes. Not as many as you might think, really. It would initially, but there would be no real need in the long run. quote: Will the law cost tax dollars? Yes. It will have to cover the salaries of the new hires as well as the expense of free ID cards for those who cannot afford one. Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) quote: Has it actually been verified that voter fraud is a significant problem? No. Even those on the right when told that "The problem is insignificant" claim that "It hasn't been verified" Guess what? If you can't quantify something as insignificant, then neither can you quantify it as significant. LMAO!! Ever heard the oft-quoted political phrase, "if it saves just one life...?" And, no, I'm not equating a life to a vote, before you attempt to twist my words. Significance and insignificance aren't important to a politician, now, are they?

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:15:20 AM)
quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional.

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:33:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Sorry, I missed the link. How are college kids not eligible to vote because of this law? Perhaps you can show how that is accomplished? Another link you ignored. Read it this time http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2013/08/14/county-board-to-student-candidate-you-can-vote-for-now-but-you-cant-run-for-city-council/ Looks like the college student can still vote, no? The argument was based on technicalities, and I can see both sides of it. Can you? I happened to remain in Toledo after attending UToledo, so this wasn't something I ran up against. You still didn't read it. The article plainly says that the qualifications to run for office are the same as registering to vote. There are no two sides of this. It blatantly violates the Constitution.

DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:34:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Thank God we don't want to make sure we prevent something, or lower the risk of something happening. But we do want to prevent something: Democratic voters getting to the polls. I hope that's not sugar-sweetened Kool-Aid, DC. Not good for your teeth. Come to think of it, the non-sugar sweetened Kool-Aid isn't all that good for you, either. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/06/26/fox-downplayed-voter-id-concerns-but-republican/186721 http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/fla_republican_we_suppressed_black_votes/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/republican-voter-id-scott-tranter_n_2273927.html http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/19/fight-over-poll-hours-isnt-just-political.html

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:40:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It doesn't matter if it's a significant number or not. If a law disproportionally impacts law abiding citizens of either party or no party and it cannot be shown to actually solve a problem (or you cannot even show that a problem exists) it is a shitty law and should not be passed. Are you claiming that no one has ever voted fraudulently that requiring an ID would have prevented? quote: Will the law require new employees to enforce? Yes. Not as many as you might think, really. It would initially, but there would be no real need in the long run. It doesn't matte4r how many. It's more. It is Republicans making government bigger. quote: Will the law cost tax dollars? Yes. It will have to cover the salaries of the new hires as well as the expense of free ID cards for those who cannot afford one. Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) It doesn't matter how much more. it's Republicans wanting to spend more tax dollars. quote: Has it actually been verified that voter fraud is a significant problem? No. Even those on the right when told that "The problem is insignificant" claim that "It hasn't been verified" Guess what? If you can't quantify something as insignificant, then neither can you quantify it as significant. LMAO!! Ever heard the oft-quoted political phrase, "if it saves just one life...?" And, no, I'm not equating a life to a vote, before you attempt to twist my words. Significance and insignificance aren't important to a politician, now, are they? "If it saves one life" yeah folks, let's go full on Nanny State and pack people in bubble wrap from birth to death. It would save a life wouldn't it?[8\|] Bottom line. the Republican party is SUPPOSED to be about less spending, less government and less regulation but they're doing the opposite aren't they? Why? they're doing it because they got their asses kicked last November and they can't conceive of losing unless 'the other guys cheated.' How about "You lost because you're fucking incompetent".

Phydeaux -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:44:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional. Still spreading BS, eh mnotter.. I provided the quotes where the supreme court expressly said that voter id's - tax payer funded are expressly permitted.

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 9:55:07 AM)
No you did not. You provided a case in which voter ids were allowed but not so long as they violated harkins, that is, there has to be an escape clause, voter id cannot be absolute, if you aint got one, you still get to vote. and there are 30 states that have a voter id law along the same lines today. But you spread asswipe like horseshit. If voter id is mandatory, it cannot be paid for by taxpayers, it violates poll taxes.

Phydeaux -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail No you did not. You provided a case in which voter ids were allowed but not so long as they violated harkins, that is, there has to be an escape clause, voter id cannot be absolute, if you aint got one, you still get to vote. and there are 30 states that have a voter id law along the same lines today. But you spread asswipe like horseshit. If voter id is mandatory, it cannot be paid for by taxpayers, it violates poll taxes. I suggest anyone that has an actual desire to read the truth, go read the recent Supreme Court decision, where none of these ravings (thank god) are present. Which, more or less said, that the state had a reasonable interest in ensuring free and fair elections - and that such measures to obtain that could be at the inconvenience of voters, even if it would be a significant impediment to a small number of voters (ie., to handicapped, or rural voters).

Phydeaux -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:23:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional. Snicker. Ever hear of Tammany Hall? Boss Hogg? The Daley Machine? Cook County? Samuel Tilden? And regarding voting - since the eligible voters had to be LANDOWNERS - I'm fairly sure that most would consider the proposed standards of today laxer than the requirements to vote at the founding of the republic.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:31:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional. BS, Ron. There can't be a direct cost to get the ID. That would be akin to a poll tax. But, an ID does cost money, right? If the taxpayers bear that cost, it's still costing money, right? The GW and AH comments are pure bullshit strawmen, MN. You can do better than that.

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:37:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional. Snicker. Ever hear of Tammany Hall? Boss Hogg? The Daley Machine? Cook County? Samuel Tilden? And regarding voting - since the eligible voters had to be LANDOWNERS - I'm fairly sure that most would consider the proposed standards of today laxer than the requirements to vote at the founding of the republic. Yes, Boss Hogg was a character on Dukes of Hazard, and is a shining example of your lack of reality in your senseless bullshit. And all the others happened way after landowning was no longer required to vote. Ever heard of the republican Florida steal with a huge assist from SCOTUS?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:38:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri BS, Ron. There can't be a direct cost to get the ID. That would be akin to a poll tax. But, an ID does cost money, right? If the taxpayers bear that cost, it's still costing money, right? Thank you for restating one of my salient points.

Phydeaux -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:41:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional. Snicker. Ever hear of Tammany Hall? Boss Hogg? The Daley Machine? Cook County? Samuel Tilden? And regarding voting - since the eligible voters had to be LANDOWNERS - I'm fairly sure that most would consider the proposed standards of today laxer than the requirements to vote at the founding of the republic. Yes, Boss Hogg was a character on Dukes of Hazard, and is a shining example of your lack of reality in your senseless bullshit. And all the others happened way after landowning was no longer required to vote. Ever heard of the republican Florida steal with a huge assist from SCOTUS? Oh pardon me for misspelling his name uneducated child. Here is a link to the person in question:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hague

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:43:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri It doesn't matter if it's a significant number or not. If a law disproportionally impacts law abiding citizens of either party or no party and it cannot be shown to actually solve a problem (or you cannot even show that a problem exists) it is a shitty law and should not be passed. Are you claiming that no one has ever voted fraudulently that requiring an ID would have prevented? quote: Will the law require new employees to enforce? Yes. Not as many as you might think, really. It would initially, but there would be no real need in the long run. It doesn't matte4r how many. It's more. It is Republicans making government bigger. quote: quote: Will the law cost tax dollars? Yes. It will have to cover the salaries of the new hires as well as the expense of free ID cards for those who cannot afford one. Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) It doesn't matter how much more. it's Republicans wanting to spend more tax dollars. quote: quote: Has it actually been verified that voter fraud is a significant problem? No. Even those on the right when told that "The problem is insignificant" claim that "It hasn't been verified" Guess what? If you can't quantify something as insignificant, then neither can you quantify it as significant. LMAO!! Ever heard the oft-quoted political phrase, "if it saves just one life...?" And, no, I'm not equating a life to a vote, before you attempt to twist my words. Significance and insignificance aren't important to a politician, now, are they? "If it saves one life" yeah folks, let's go full on Nanny State and pack people in bubble wrap from birth to death. It would save a life wouldn't it?[8\|] Bottom line. the Republican party is SUPPOSED to be about less spending, less government and less regulation but they're doing the opposite aren't they? Why? they're doing it because they got their asses kicked last November and they can't conceive of losing unless 'the other guys cheated.' How about "You lost because you're fucking incompetent". You are griping about the R's wanting to increase spending? Do you do the same when the D's do it? If it's really about increasing the size of government, or increasing government spending, then, you must be completely twisted up in knots. Or, is it that the R's are increasing those things (modestly, at worst, in both cases)? We don't really have much to argue about when it comes to the R's increasing spending, the size and scope of Government, nor do we have an argument that the Party of R has decreased spending, smaller government and less regulation as it's traditional party planks. But, to take blanket pot shots at the R's whenever they do something that many of them see as necessary, then that's just BS partisan rhetoric. If we didn't have any government at all, that would be the most limited, least spending and least regulating government possible, wouldn't it? The Party of R, traditionally or current, would not pay any support to that. "Smaller Government" isn't just about decreasing the size and scope of government. It's about reducing it as much as possible while still allowing to to effectively carry out the powers given to it. Working towards keeping our elections secure sure seems like something government (at any level) should be doing.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 10:59:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You are griping about the R's wanting to increase spending? Do you do the same when the D's do it? If it's really about increasing the size of government, or increasing government spending, then, you must be completely twisted up in knots. Or, is it that the R's are increasing those things (modestly, at worst, in both cases)? "Smaller Government" isn't just about decreasing the size and scope of government. It's about reducing it as much as possible while still allowing to to effectively carry out the powers given to it. Working towards keeping our elections secure sure seems like something government (at any level) should be doing. Damn right, I bitch when the D side increases spending on bullshit. Unlike most of the people in this country, I don't care if someone has a (D) or an (R) after their name. If they fuck up, I'll say they fucked up. Likewise if they do something stupid. The R side has, as one of the centerpieces of their party goal, to embrace a smaller, less intrusive government. The problem is that it's been 30 years since they did that. Both sides want to pass laws as a knee jerk reaction to a real or imaginary problem. If the voter laws could guarantee that they would be fraud proof, I'd support them 100%. They can't can they? Is there a little bit of fraud? Yes. Has there been voter fraud since Urg the caveman held up 2 hands instead of one when the clan was deciding whether to hunt mammoth or muskox this week? Yes Are the voter proposed ID laws a solution? No because there can be no 100% effective solution. They are however a pain in the ass for some of the law abiding people who are wishing to exercise their Constitutional right of franchise.

mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 11:41:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: Original : mnottertail Yes, Boss Hogg was a character on Dukes of Hazard, and is a shining example of your lack of reality in your senseless bullshit. And all the others happened way after landowning was no longer required to vote. Ever heard of the republican Florida steal with a huge assist from SCOTUS? Oh pardon me for misspelling his name uneducated child. Here is a link to the person in question:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hague AH, yes the uneducated child backpeddling and squirming in the most veriformous fashion, as is his wont..... Boss Hogg = Frank Hague. I would suppose that Ronald Reagan= St. Wrinklemeat patron saint of Alzheimers and destroyer of America is a misspelling as wll.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri You are griping about the R's wanting to increase spending? Do you do the same when the D's do it? If it's really about increasing the size of government, or increasing government spending, then, you must be completely twisted up in knots. Or, is it that the R's are increasing those things (modestly, at worst, in both cases)? "Smaller Government" isn't just about decreasing the size and scope of government. It's about reducing it as much as possible while still allowing to to effectively carry out the powers given to it. Working towards keeping our elections secure sure seems like something government (at any level) should be doing. Damn right, I bitch when the D side increases spending on bullshit. Unlike most of the people in this country, I don't care if someone has a (D) or an (R) after their name. If they fuck up, I'll say they fucked up. Likewise if they do something stupid. The R side has, as one of the centerpieces of their party goal, to embrace a smaller, less intrusive government. The problem is that it's been 30 years since they did that. I know, and it's a damn shame. This is why I do not self-label as a Republican. quote: Both sides want to pass laws as a knee jerk reaction to a real or imaginary problem. If the voter laws could guarantee that they would be fraud proof, I'd support them 100%. They can't can they? Is there a little bit of fraud? Yes. Has there been voter fraud since Urg the caveman held up 2 hands instead of one when the clan was deciding whether to hunt mammoth or muskox this week? Yes Are the voter proposed ID laws a solution? No because there can be no 100% effective solution. They are however a pain in the ass for some of the law abiding people who are wishing to exercise their Constitutional right of franchise. 100% effective? Best of luck finding that. That, in and of itself, is a stupid goal to have. I know you're simply spouting that to try to end the discussion. Won't work, though. You are simply removing yourself from the discussion by only accepting perfect solutions. Where do you fall on the Gun Control debate?

joether -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:21:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: Lots of stuff costs tax dollars, Hill. IMO, making sure our elections are secure is worth the cost (which won't be all that much, really) Our elections have been secure since the founding of this country, now; would George Washington be able to vote today, with no ID, Alexander Hamilton without birth certificate? Voter ID would add not one iota of security to our elections, and is not worth the additional burgeon of government and spending. Nothing in the Voter ID acts can cost tax dollars, it is unconstitutional. Still spreading BS, eh mnotter.. I provided the quotes where the supreme court expressly said that voter id's - tax payer funded are expressly permitted. If its all B.S., by all means, show one federal election in the last 12 years in which the number of fraudulent votes actually contributed to the outcome of the race. Whether for Senator, Representative or the 'Big Dicks Office', the President. It has not happen. Not even once! Colorado in the last election had 155 fraudulent votes; the race for the President had 121 million votes cast. Those 155 were a fart in a hurricane for effect on the out come. Does voter fraud take place? Not anywhere on the scale Republicans or FOX News (or other conservative talk radio shows) are stating. It does happen, but the penalties are so strict that only an idiot or fool would follow through. But to burst the bubble, my 4th Amendment Rights trump state law. I state who I am and where I live; that is effectively an oath to the state that I'm not breaking a law and have passed all previous rules to be able to vote. Voter ID laws are not going to stop others from voting for dead people; that is where you give more money to the clerks of your town/city to keep those books as up to date as possible! It will increase the size of government, waste a pile of money, and accomplish....nothing...that shows violating my 4th amendment rights could justify.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625