DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
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?
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.
_____________________________
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)
|
RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
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