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 12:24:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Where do you fall on the Gun Control debate?


I prefer a 2 handed grip. It doesn't look as cool but there's a lot less soreness in my shoulders after range time and my groupings are tighter.

ETA. I was pissed when they passed laws that meant I couldn't buy my own ammo and reloading supplies any more until I tuned 18. I'd already been handloading for my own .243 for 4 years by that time and now, I couldn't go buy my own primers and powder.

I was a regular customer for fucks sakes.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:27:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Where do you fall on the Gun Control debate?

I prefer a 2 handed grip. It doesn't look as cool but there's a lot less soreness in my shoulders after range time and my groupings are tighter.


So, you prefer more gun control. Well, at least you prefer for you to have more control over your own gun.

Do you support Obamacare? Remember, it's not 100% effective at getting everyone insured. [8D]




mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:32:54 PM)

But it insures more than 280 people nationwide. Voter ID doesn't insure a fuckin thing except larger government, more intrusion, and boondoggle.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:34:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But it insures more than 280 people nationwide. Voter ID doesn't insure a fuckin thing except larger government, more intrusion, and boondoggle.


It is not 100% effective, so it shouldn't pass Hill's standards.

But, thanks for the number showing that it won't cover all 300+M Americans.




joether -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:36:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
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?


I agree that there will not be a 100$% effective rate. However, voter fraud in any one state of the union has yet to pass the 0.0001% threshold. If it was taking place 1-5% someone could be an argument. But not one state has that rate. Not even 0.1-0.5%. Or 0.01-0.05%. In other words, the voter fraud that does happen is so insignificant against the final outcome as to render it irrelevant. So why create laws, spending heaps of money on something that doesn't happen enough to place even a tiny significant role in the final outcome of a federal election race?

The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.





mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:39:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But it insures more than 280 people nationwide. Voter ID doesn't insure a fuckin thing except larger government, more intrusion, and boondoggle.


It is not 100% effective, so it shouldn't pass Hill's standards.

But, thanks for the number showing that it won't cover all 300+M Americans.




I am thinking that number is the total number of frauds in voting nationwide and simultaneously the same number that would not be fixed by voter id, which is indeed zero.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:44:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.


They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?

Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?




Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:50:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Where do you fall on the Gun Control debate?

I prefer a 2 handed grip. It doesn't look as cool but there's a lot less soreness in my shoulders after range time and my groupings are tighter.


So, you prefer more gun control. Well, at least you prefer for you to have more control over your own gun.

Do you support Obamacare? Remember, it's not 100% effective at getting everyone insured. [8D]


I prefer to have more control over my firearms because I have no intention of using 41 bullets to do the job of one. The fuckers are expensive.

Obamacare is going to ultimately fail and be replaced by something else that actually works like single payer for example.

What we have now is the most expensive healthcare in the world but about the 20th best.
We obviously don't get what we pay for and I blame Congress for that.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 12:52:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.


They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?

Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?


I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 6:50:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.

They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?
Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?

I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal.


There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy.




DomKen -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/19/2013 8:15:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.

They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?
Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?

I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal.


There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy.


Present evidence that significant fraud, enough to change the outcome of elections, is being committed that can be stopped by these very restrictive ID laws and also explain these:
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




joether -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 3:29:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.


They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?

Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?


I disagree with Voter ID laws for a few basic reasons:

A ) The data and studies gathered so far of the past four general elections shows the amount of voter fraud in each statue of the union to be so low as to render its impact on the final vote irrelevant. As I said before, if the percentage of voter fraud was 0.01%, that might be one thing. But that would be well over 100,000 acts of voter fraud taking place. Call it an educated guess that...SOMEONE...would notice the extra boxes of votes that are unverified by town/city clerks as being suspicious. In my state, there has been 2016 acts of voter fraud. Only one of those causes was legitimately voter fraud. In three general election votes.

B ) The idea that I'm accused of:
1) Not being who I state I am,
2 ) Not residing where I state that I live,
3 ) Or not being who I state nor living where I state.

Last I checked this is the United States of America, NOT, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. One is consider innocent of wrong doing until proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law like any other crime. I state who I am and where I live, that should be sufficient for the government. If someone doesn't like that, its up to them to give the burden of proof....FIRST!

C ) The amount of money being spent in states to create, maintain, and fight in the courts is a silly waste of money. It will be overturned in the courts sooner or later. I'm both surprised and amused by all the 'fiscal conservatives' that bitch about wasteful spending are completely silent on this issue. If your going to bitch at the guy you didn't vote on but was elected; that means you'll hold the guy you do elect to office to twice the level of accountability and responsibility. But if you give the person you elected to office a blank check on both, than what does that really say of your philosophy and character?

D ) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The 4th Amendment. Why does election committee need to know whether I wear corrective lenses of contacts? I could understand the Dept. of Motor Vehicles need for such information. That information is on my Driver's License. In addition, the code that links my personal information to my driving history; why does the election committee need that information? I do not see any real justification for this part of the government seeing my 'papers' after I stated effectively 'under oath' while in front of a law enforcement official that I am who I say I am, and live where I state I live.

E ) What is the penalty for each act of voter fraud by one person? Funny how the Republican Party doesn't publish this information. Here is Mississippi's Penalty for Voter Fraud by the Guilty! Go right ahead and commit your 3000 acts of voter fraud; that's up to $3 million in fines you'll be shelling out as you spend the next 300 years in prison! You willing to pay huge fines and go to prison for most of your life just to see someone elected to office that doesn't know you exist much less care?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 5:36:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.

They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?
Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?

I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal.

There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy.

Present evidence that significant fraud, enough to change the outcome of elections, is being committed that can be stopped by these very restrictive ID laws and also explain these:
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


Doesn't need to be significant, Ken. 100% is 100%. 99% isn't 100%, is it?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 5:50:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.

They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?
Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?

I disagree with Voter ID laws for a few basic reasons:
A ) The data and studies gathered so far of the past four general elections shows the amount of voter fraud in each statue of the union to be so low as to render its impact on the final vote irrelevant. As I said before, if the percentage of voter fraud was 0.01%, that might be one thing. But that would be well over 100,000 acts of voter fraud taking place. Call it an educated guess that...SOMEONE...would notice the extra boxes of votes that are unverified by town/city clerks as being suspicious. In my state, there has been 2016 acts of voter fraud. Only one of those causes was legitimately voter fraud. In three general election votes.
B ) The idea that I'm accused of:
1) Not being who I state I am,
2 ) Not residing where I state that I live,
3 ) Or not being who I state nor living where I state.
Last I checked this is the United States of America, NOT, Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. One is consider innocent of wrong doing until proven beyond a shadow of doubt in a court of law like any other crime. I state who I am and where I live, that should be sufficient for the government. If someone doesn't like that, its up to them to give the burden of proof....FIRST!


And, we've been round and round with that. There is no way for someone to prove you are not who you say you are when you're lying, unless they are the person you are claiming to be or living where you say you are living.

quote:

C ) The amount of money being spent in states to create, maintain, and fight in the courts is a silly waste of money. It will be overturned in the courts sooner or later. I'm both surprised and amused by all the 'fiscal conservatives' that bitch about wasteful spending are completely silent on this issue. If your going to bitch at the guy you didn't vote on but was elected; that means you'll hold the guy you do elect to office to twice the level of accountability and responsibility. But if you give the person you elected to office a blank check on both, than what does that really say of your philosophy and character?


Where has anyone given a "blank check" to the guy they support and held the guy they don't support to twice the level of accountability and responsibility?

quote:

D ) "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The 4th Amendment. Why does election committee need to know whether I wear corrective lenses of contacts? I could understand the Dept. of Motor Vehicles need for such information. That information is on my Driver's License. In addition, the code that links my personal information to my driving history; why does the election committee need that information? I do not see any real justification for this part of the government seeing my 'papers' after I stated effectively 'under oath' while in front of a law enforcement official that I am who I say I am, and live where I state I live.


I find it reasonable that someone should provide identification. Are you seriously equating asking for ID to search and seizure? Do you run driver checkpoints, too, based on your 4th amendment?

quote:

E ) What is the penalty for each act of voter fraud by one person? Funny how the Republican Party doesn't publish this information. Here is Mississippi's Penalty for Voter Fraud by the Guilty! Go right ahead and commit your 3000 acts of voter fraud; that's up to $3 million in fines you'll be shelling out as you spend the next 300 years in prison! You willing to pay huge fines and go to prison for most of your life just to see someone elected to office that doesn't know you exist much less care?


I agree that some average joe/jane engaging in voter fraud would be stupid, but if there was a "machine" that enlisted everyday joes and janes...

Do you recall the "if we support Obama, he'll give back to us" [paraphrased] lady? I'm not saying she participated in voter fraud, but when you have people that take such an incredibly ignorant view of reality, it is not difficult to see how they can be manipulated, is it?




cloudboy -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 6:43:51 AM)


You're looking at it all wrong. If you are pro-Republican, you have to get behind Voter-ID laws b/c it will help kick Democrats out of office.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 7:33:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.

They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?
Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?

I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal.


There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy.


I sure wish you'd learn to read an entire post.
There is a huge difference between significant and 100%
C'mon man. Quit acting like you're not intelligent because I happen to know that you are.
cherrypicking is for FAUX and MSLSD 'news'




DesideriScuri -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 7:40:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
The Gun Control debate is entirely different. Your comparing muffler performance to games sold through EA Games. When someone commits voter fraud, no one goes to the hospital or county morgue! Can you say the same about firearms? Firearms are relatively easy to obtain and use; voting can only be performed on very specific days as decided by the laws of society. An accidental vote cast can take place and be corrected; an accidental discharge of a firearm can have very deadly set of outcomes. As you see, these are two very different concepts being debated here.

They are not different. Neither "solution" that is being pushed is 100% effective. Agree or Disagree?
Hill stated that he won't support Voter ID laws because they aren't perfect (100% effective). Is that simply a subjective standard, or is that the across the board standard for gaining his support?

I also stated I don't support them because there's no evidence that there is even a problem (If it ain't broke, don't fix it is obviously a concept that Congress has never heard of), it's expensive and it hurts law abiding citizens more than any criminal.

There have been many posts here that show there is fraud. Apparently, unless there is 100% fraud and a 100% effective solution, you aren't jumping on any bandwagons. Good for you. Enjoy.

I sure wish you'd learn to read an entire post.
There is a huge difference between significant and 100%
C'mon man. Quit acting like you're not intelligent because I happen to know that you are.
cherrypicking is for FAUX and MSLSD 'news'


Perhaps you shouldn't have set the bar at 100% effective, then? That was your doing, not mine.




Hillwilliam -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 7:42:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Perhaps you shouldn't have set the bar at 100% effective, then? That was your doing, not mine.


Well, the way it looks, if they can prevent a dozen or more instances in the country, it would be 100% effective.




papassion -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 9:21:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I thought this was a good picture regarding NC.




[image]local://upfiles/210115/D416074887B143E5BBA5BED7C2F39874.gif[/image]


Liberals go on about how hard it is for the poor and minorities to obtain a photo ID. Why do Liberals think the poor and minorities are too dumb to have, or be able to get photo ID's?

Lets have cameras at the voting centers. Photo and fingerprint anyone who does not have a photo ID. Thus, if you can get to the voting center, you can vote. Who can then bitch or scream about being "prevented" from voting?




mnottertail -> RE: Republicans Limiting The Vote (8/20/2013 9:24:18 AM)

voting is a right guarenteed by the constitution.

Photo and fingerprint nutsuckers, not real Americans.




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875