quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion



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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
voting is a right guarenteed by the constitution.
Photo and fingerprint nutsuckers, not real Americans.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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?

If these laws disenfranchise many times as many legal voters as the number of fraudulent votes cast how is that justifiable?

quote:

And you still have never dealt with all those Republicans openly admitting this is all about their side winning elections ad not about the integrity of elections.

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

quote:

You keep talking about disenfranchising. Why? If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Yes, there are issues with those who are very old - and I have already stated that I'd support programs to help those people get their ID's - and with those who can not afford to pay for them - and most of the laws also offer those ID's for free for those of low income, which I have zero issue with. FFS, I would even support a program to get an ID in the hands of every kid turning 16, like a rite of passage. Have it part of "government" class in HS. Field trip to the DMV day!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

You keep talking about disenfranchising. Why? If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she? Yes, there are issues with those who are very old - and I have already stated that I'd support programs to help those people get their ID's - and with those who can not afford to pay for them - and most of the laws also offer those ID's for free for those of low income, which I have zero issue with. FFS, I would even support a program to get an ID in the hands of every kid turning 16, like a rite of passage. Have it part of "government" class in HS. Field trip to the DMV day!!

Are you also willing to pay for the copies of BC's that may be needed? Used to simply cost a couple of bucks to get one, now they are expensive.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it.

"with the way [they] are going about it"

What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it.

"with the way [they] are going about it"
What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment.

Bullshit. Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida and other Republican controlled states were all told by judges in the lawsuits they lost what changes needed to be made and they didn't. These laws are not about the integrity of elections. They are about disenfranchising citizens who don't vote for Republicans. Anyone who supports that is about as un-American as they come.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
You dont see that as deliberate? Most of those in office are not young kids. They "supposedly" know their constituents. They "supposedly" know the areas they represent. They "supposedly" have feed back from those who they represent.
I find it extremely hard to believe they didnt know all these barriers to voting existed and yet they did nothing to work assistance into the "laws" that were passed.... perhaps ulterior motives? Offering to do so after major elections is extremely hypocritical. People arent as stupid as politicians wished they were.

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

quote:

If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
See, I have no problem with ID's to vote. I do have a problem with the way these states are going about it.

"with the way [they] are going about it"
What do you mean? That they aren't starting programs to help people source the necessary documents? That might be something that comes along as a "necessary and proper" add on, or amendment.

Bullshit. Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida and other Republican controlled states were all told by judges in the lawsuits they lost what changes needed to be made and they didn't. These laws are not about the integrity of elections. They are about disenfranchising citizens who don't vote for Republicans. Anyone who supports that is about as un-American as they come.

Hyperbole, as usual. Yawn.

quote:

Actually, I think it's that "politicians aren't as smart as people think they are."

Plus, this legislation could easily be a framework upon which the necessary programs are made, couldn't it? Isn't that typical for legislation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

If a person is capable of voting, he or she should also be bright enough to be able to get an ID, shouldn't he/she?

Ah, so the ID requirement serves as a 21st-century literacy test.
Plus ca change . . .

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

quote:

intelligence isn't a barrier to getting an ID,

quote:

but great way to bring in some partisanship, DC!

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

intelligence isn't a barrier to getting an ID,

So then what was the point of your "bright enough" comment? You were essentially saying that people too dumb "to get an ID" deserve to be disenfranchised. All for the public good, of course.

quote:

but great way to bring in some partisanship, DC!

You took a stance that echoed Jim Crow-era strategies at suppressing the vote. I pointed it out. That's historical perspective, not partisanship.
What's partisan is taking one party's disenfranchisement strategy and trying to dress it up as a civic good.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Well, if you don't have a driver's lisense you can't drive, no-one complains about it being "difficult" to get a D.L. and driving isn't even a right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


I thought this was a good picture regarding NC.

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?