RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1

RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (Full Version)

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

Message

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/8/2014 3:18:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Finally you have stated your concerns. Sadly beyond stating them you have offered no evidence to support your concerns, to elevate their status from 'concern' to 'problem'. To date, the only evidence on the extent of voter fraud is offered in the OP, and that rubbishes the claim that voter fraud is a serious problem. In fact the numbers involved are so infinitesimally small that to suggest they constitute a real issue never mind an issue deserving a nation wide legislative response is risible. So unless you can produce some evidence alerting us to serious levels of voter fraud, then I can only conclude that this entire issue is driven by political expediency, that it is a devious attempt to increase the Right's influence by disenfranchising sections of the community perceived to be Democrat sympathetic. The self styled attempt to defend democratic voting turns out to be a very anti-democratic and unprincipled attempt to subvert that democracy. You're completely wrong... again. And where is your argument with supporting information that she is wrong? That's right...NO EXISTANT! Tweakabelle and myself have watched the West Wing, and you haven't not. Within that show, President Barlett (played by the actor Martin Sheen) explains how arguments in a court room operate: "When you have the facts on your side; you argue the facts. When you have the evidence on your side; you argue the evidence. When you have neither facts nor evidence on your side.....bang....the table so loud the other guy cant be heard." Your doing just that, in a childish mannerism. You have no evidence. You have no facts. The studies are against you. The research is against you. That I have answered every one of your questions fairly and with supporting information, where as you have not answered even 1/10th of mine states volumes to any intelligent and educated person. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? There are many threads others and myself simply do not enter into. That is most often due to not having a political connection to what is being discussed/argued. It is a well established fact, that you have a political interest. I based this argument on the number of posts to this thread, and the number of posts to previous threads on this subject (i.e. Voter Fraud and/or Voter Photo ID Laws). That you can not be honest to yourself and others...ALSO....speaks volumes.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, for the record, your conclusions means barely more to me than Joether's. Yes, facts and evidence don't matter. Only what state run propagan.....er....conservative media tells you to think. Time and again, you have had your arguments destroyed...utterly....by facts and evidence. The only possible way you can reach your viewpoint is if your a 'fanatic to the cause'. Which is to say, no amount of evidence or facts will change your viewpoint. That you can not be reasoned with. That you are so conditioned and programmed, that you might as well be a mindless drone serving your masters in the GOP/TP. In which case, should we even allow you the freedoms of being a US Citizen, since we don't give the same to robots at the current time?

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/8/2014 5:57:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? Um, I'm arguing for an idea that I think is a damn good idea, actually. In case you haven't noticed, I don't agree with everything some "conservative" mouthpiece spouts. I don't know if you participated, but I disagreed with Dr. Larry Arnn from Hillsdale College in the Constitution Minute #11. quote: There are many threads others and myself simply do not enter into. That is most often due to not having a political connection to what is being discussed/argued. It is a well established fact, that you have a political interest. I based this argument on the number of posts to this thread, and the number of posts to previous threads on this subject (i.e. Voter Fraud and/or Voter Photo ID Laws). That you can not be honest to yourself and others...ALSO....speaks volumes.... Not really, Joether. It's not politics. I happen to agree with the need for Voter ID's and don't think it's an unreasonable request. And, you have absolutely no clue about my honesty. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, for the record, your conclusions means barely more to me than Joether's. Yes, facts and evidence don't matter. Only what state run propagan.....er....conservative media tells you to think. Time and again, you have had your arguments destroyed...utterly....by facts and evidence. The only possible way you can reach your viewpoint is if your a 'fanatic to the cause'. Which is to say, no amount of evidence or facts will change your viewpoint. That you can not be reasoned with. That you are so conditioned and programmed, that you might as well be a mindless drone serving your masters in the GOP/TP. In which case, should we even allow you the freedoms of being a US Citizen, since we don't give the same to robots at the current time? Again, you're fucking clueless about me. What "state run" propaganda or "conservative media" do I get my info from? And, your "conclusions" are more accurately spelled, "delusions."

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/8/2014 7:25:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether There is voter fraud, DS. But its the rate it happens that is under scrutiny. You argue....without evidence....that voter fraud is taking place at the rate the GOP/TP tells you to believe. Proof of this (bolded) assertion? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The cost of getting a birth certificate is real. I do not deny that. There can be a cost to getting an ID outside of the actual ID (many states provide them for free, but that doesn't include travel costs). I'm good with having a program to help those without ID's who want them to get them. There is an abundant amount of Americans that do not have a birth certificate, even though they were born within the United States or conform to other ways in which one would become a US Citizen. What your stating here is that you don't trust your fellow Americans nor give them the benefit of doubt. Got any citation for an "abundant amount of Americans" without birth cert's? How many of those don't already have ID's? How many of those without ID's are likely voters anyway? Source # 1 56 quote: Source # 2 And, this would be taken care of with a program (that I've already stated support for) to help these people get the required documentation, logistically and financially. Once again, though, this article is about people who are of "voter age." That means little, actually. That doesn't necessarily translate into "likely voters." I do have to wonder how many of the ID-less "voting age" people were already registered. That might show how likely they are to vote in the first place, no? quote: Source # 3 And, 3... quote: Took me like 10 seconds to get a list from google of possible sources. Took me additional time to read through the information in each source. But each in their own way point out the hardships with obtaining photo IDs. The first source I mention explains quite a few examples of people whom did not have a valid photo ID, but wished to vote. Would be an easy (but time consuming) effort to create a study on how accurate this concept was in states where vote photo ID laws were created. http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/indiana-turnout-not-affected-by-voter-id-requirement/article_a385924c-8e14-5926-9d1d-600b7190e065.html http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/03/minority-turnout-impacted-by-georgia-voter-id-law/ http://www.propublica.org/article/what-effect-if-any-did-voter-id-laws-have-on-the-election http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444868204578064890976575334 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084598 quote: And that those without voter ID's tend to vote for freedom and democracy, rather than tyranny and oppression. Horseshit. quote: You are on the wrong side of freedom and liberty! Your 'evidence' is easily debunked with some research and study. Those three sources above are just a tiny amount to which I can unleash. And you STILL haven't explained why its 'ok' for the US Government to violate my 4th amendment rights. Do you even know...WHAT...the 4th amendment is defined? Sure do. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I see who people vote for and hear why they placed those votes. Yeah, I don't trust a lot of American voters. You see who people actually voted for? So, lets be clear before I call the FBI: You snuck into the actual voting booth and observed people voting in private, which is allowed under our form of government? Hey, Joether, there's this really fucking neat thing we have in the US now. I'm assuming they have it other places, too, but I won't speak for other countries. Here, we call them, "election results." It shows who people voted for. Amazing what people come up with anymore, innit? quote: Thanks to the Affordable Cart Act of 2010, you can obtain therapy to help treat that paranoia you seem to have..... Thanks to my working, I can afford to pay for insurance... quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether But that doesn't explain why they should get such a ID in the first place to vote. They state who they are and where they live. It is up to someone else to not only challenge them, but show evidence. Again, that's pure horseshit. Liar: "I'm John Q Public from 123 Main St." Poll Worker: Here you go, John. Please sign here. Me: That's not John Q Public. I live at 125 Main St and am John's neighbor, and I know for certain that is not John Q Public. Ok, I'll walk you through how the law works in this case.... The accuser (you), would have to explain to a police officer that is typically on hand at the voting station (a judge of law) that the accused (i.e. the other person) is not true for one of three reasons: A ) They are not who they say they are, B ) They do not live where they say they live. C ) A combination of A and B. The police officer could then ask the accused to verify their information. Under US Law, the accused person (whether guilty or innocent) is not forced to give such information under the 4th or 5th amendments. Nor give that information to their accuser, whom could be an identity thief! The police officer takes out their smart phone (the police in Massachusetts are all issued one). They get the Mass DMV app (a law enforcement app), and plug in the name and/or address that accused originally gave (the accused can stay silent this entire time, under the law, thanks to the 5th amendment). The app will give the driver's license of the individual. This will include a PHOTO ID, their address, license #, driving restrictions, and past violations of the law. The police officer can also contact their police department for further information on the person's possible criminal violations as well. So all the police officer has to do is hold the smartphone and PHOTO ID of the individual up to the accused person's face to make a determination of possible guilt or not. The police officer is under no duty nor obligation to release....ANY...of the information to the accuser. Anyone that accused me of not being who I say I am nor living where I say I lived.....would get sued for every possible penny they own. So that idiot better be ready for a hellish court battle! An individual when accused of....ANY CRIME....from jaywalking to capital murder, is considered....INNCOENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....in a COURT OF LAW. You are aware of how the legal laws work in America, right? That there is a US Constitution and within it, a series of twenty-seven amendments? So, I don't actually have to prove that some guy is actually not who he says he is to get an officer to ask for ID? What happens if the person doesn't have a Driver's License? Kinda throws out that whole Mass DMV thingy, no? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is that to be proven? I can show my ID showing that I live right next door to John Q Public. I could also have it out for the guy and make the claim to spite him. What you're advocating is for people to not actually have to prove they are who they say they are. Why is that such a bad thing? The fact that you can not imagine how this process would work speaks volumes of your creativity. Not to mention education, knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. People DONT have to prove it, DS, that's the WHOLE POINT OF THE 4th AMENDMENT: 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. Being a conservative and related to gun nuts, you tend to ignore those parts of the amendments that are politically inconvenient for you and your arguments. Unfortunately for you, the WHOLE law has to be followed. What part of it not being unreasonable do you not get?!? Is it too long of a word? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, again, how do we know that the person voting is actually a citizen of the US? We ask them. "Are you a US Citizen?" "Yes" "Can you prove it?" "Yes, but why should I? I have a 4th amendment right under the US Constitution. Or do you want to challenge my Constitutional Rights?" Would you challenge another person's Constitutional Right to vote, DS? Knowing nothing about the person other than they just walked in to vote? Bullying me, now? Really? The 4th Amendment - for the however many times it's been - is a protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I submit that this isn't really a search or a seizure, and isn't an unreasonable request to begin with. And who decides if its unreasonable, DS? The Government or myself, the individual citizen? I feel its unreasonable that I have to be searched when I give such truthful and factual information when I state who I am and where I live. Given the depth of evidence and studies performed to date, I find voter fraud to not be a problem in elections. That conservatives like you, get OWNED in these debates because you lack the evidence and facts to support baseless accusations. That the conservative media behaves like a tyrannical state media service; spewing out false and misleading information to its mindless followers. You can not counter any of my arguments, because the media hasn't give you any talking points! Seems like there are several states who have decided that requiring a photo ID isn't unreasonable, and the SCOTUS has already ruled on some, stating that they pass Constitutional muster... So, maybe you could get back in contact with your mind and think for yourself? Didn't think so.

subrosaDom -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/8/2014 7:32:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Finally you have stated your concerns. Sadly beyond stating them you have offered no evidence to support your concerns, to elevate their status from 'concern' to 'problem'. To date, the only evidence on the extent of voter fraud is offered in the OP, and that rubbishes the claim that voter fraud is a serious problem. In fact the numbers involved are so infinitesimally small that to suggest they constitute a real issue never mind an issue deserving a nation wide legislative response is risible. So unless you can produce some evidence alerting us to serious levels of voter fraud, then I can only conclude that this entire issue is driven by political expediency, that it is a devious attempt to increase the Right's influence by disenfranchising sections of the community perceived to be Democrat sympathetic. The self styled attempt to defend democratic voting turns out to be a very anti-democratic and unprincipled attempt to subvert that democracy. You're completely wrong... again. And where is your argument with supporting information that she is wrong? That's right...NO EXISTANT! Tweakabelle and myself have watched the West Wing, and you haven't not. Within that show, President Barlett (played by the actor Martin Sheen) explains how arguments in a court room operate: "When you have the facts on your side; you argue the facts. When you have the evidence on your side; you argue the evidence. When you have neither facts nor evidence on your side.....bang....the table so loud the other guy cant be heard." Your doing just that, in a childish mannerism. You have no evidence. You have no facts. The studies are against you. The research is against you. That I have answered every one of your questions fairly and with supporting information, where as you have not answered even 1/10th of mine states volumes to any intelligent and educated person. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? There are many threads others and myself simply do not enter into. That is most often due to not having a political connection to what is being discussed/argued. It is a well established fact, that you have a political interest. I based this argument on the number of posts to this thread, and the number of posts to previous threads on this subject (i.e. Voter Fraud and/or Voter Photo ID Laws). That you can not be honest to yourself and others...ALSO....speaks volumes.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, for the record, your conclusions means barely more to me than Joether's. Yes, facts and evidence don't matter. Only what state run propagan.....er....conservative media tells you to think. Time and again, you have had your arguments destroyed...utterly....by facts and evidence. The only possible way you can reach your viewpoint is if your a 'fanatic to the cause'. Which is to say, no amount of evidence or facts will change your viewpoint. That you can not be reasoned with. That you are so conditioned and programmed, that you might as well be a mindless drone serving your masters in the GOP/TP. In which case, should we even allow you the freedoms of being a US Citizen, since we don't give the same to robots at the current time? Joether: If I have to show an ID at the supermarket or the drugstore or Walmart to prove my credit card is valid, tell me why that's ok, but why somehow it's fine for a Walmart purchase but not fine for voting? Or is voting << Walmart purchase? Preposterous. There is no legitimate reason not to require government issued id to vote. You can't fly without it. You can't cash a check without it. You can't even purchase many goods without. You can't collect gambling or betting winnings without it either. You can't play online poker without providing an ID. You can't see a doctor without id either (in most cases). What can you do without an id? Well, you can use a port-a-potty at an outdoor festival. Is that the significant you attach to a vote?

tj444 -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/9/2014 6:25:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Yes, Americans can. That was my original point . Remember? [:D] http://www.collarchat.com/postnumber.asp?id=4728972 so why don't you then?

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 12:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? Um, I'm arguing for an idea that I think is a damn good idea, actually. In case you haven't noticed, I don't agree with everything some "conservative" mouthpiece spouts. I don't know if you participated, but I disagreed with Dr. Larry Arnn from Hillsdale College in the Constitution Minute #11. The idea being the government can search you at any time for any reason? Not just when you may have run afoul with the breaking a law? Am I not allowed my privacy? Besides I don't recall the first couple of elections in America needed to check one's photo ID to determine if someone was a citizen or not. Back in the days when there was trust and goodwill for one's fellow citizens. Have we fallen so much, that we force people to prove their innocence when they vote? That breaks a central concept of the US Constitution. No, you don't agree with every conservative mouthpiece on subjects ranging far a wide. But we are not discussing those other subjects at the moment, are we? We are talking on the merits of voter fraud and voter photo ID. On this discussion, you agree completely with those conservative mouthpieces! For two reasons. The first is that you have not establish an argument for why you or the government should be allowed to violate my 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. That you would accuse me of a crime without due process, lawyer, or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Do you even realize how many parts of the US Constitution and its 27 amendments you have to mow down just to arrive at this viewpoint in reality? The second is I've established that while voter fraud has taken place; the rate at which it is taking place is very different from you and the conservative media's perceptions. You see it as rampant, out of control, and evil. I see it as a collection of cased of individual fraudulent votes numbering no more than one hundred out of the billion or so votes cast since the year 2000. The difference DS? I have evidence to back my claims up. You have....NOTHING! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether There are many threads others and myself simply do not enter into. That is most often due to not having a political connection to what is being discussed/argued. It is a well established fact, that you have a political interest. I based this argument on the number of posts to this thread, and the number of posts to previous threads on this subject (i.e. Voter Fraud and/or Voter Photo ID Laws). That you can not be honest to yourself and others...ALSO....speaks volumes.... Not really, Joether. It's not politics. I happen to agree with the need for Voter ID's and don't think it's an unreasonable request. And, you have absolutely no clue about my honesty. If you wish to surrender your 4th and 5th amendment rights for some safety, go right on ahead. When that bites you in the ass, don't come complaining to all of us! Logically speaking, what is next? Can the government also observe who and what you vote on? We have to make sure you are not trying to corrupt the vote, right? Its a pretty easy and logical 'next step'. After that, post to the public how you voted. You already removed your privacy for public record, so your 1st amendment rights are simply irrelevant. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, for the record, your conclusions means barely more to me than Joether's. Yes, facts and evidence don't matter. Only what state run propagan.....er....conservative media tells you to think. Time and again, you have had your arguments destroyed...utterly....by facts and evidence. The only possible way you can reach your viewpoint is if your a 'fanatic to the cause'. Which is to say, no amount of evidence or facts will change your viewpoint. That you can not be reasoned with. That you are so conditioned and programmed, that you might as well be a mindless drone serving your masters in the GOP/TP. In which case, should we even allow you the freedoms of being a US Citizen, since we don't give the same to robots at the current time? Again, you're fucking clueless about me. What "state run" propaganda or "conservative media" do I get my info from? And, your "conclusions" are more accurately spelled, "delusions." Do I REALLY have to bring up...EVERY...single example from previous threads and this one, in which you brought false and debunked material on this topic? You have made claims in the past that 'x' number of votes were questionable; yet didn't bother to present the evidence I was able to find in 10 seconds of a goggle searches displaying that information as false and/or misleading. Either you knew about the follow up evidence and didn't say anything at each instance (i.e. dishonesty), or you didn't know how to check for updated information (i.e. an clueless). Your either dishonest or clueless; which is it? I've presented the evidence time and again. Laid down facts in my arguments. And you have yet to refute one claim. So, you have not a leg to stand on in this discussion.

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 2:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether There is voter fraud, DS. But its the rate it happens that is under scrutiny. You argue....without evidence....that voter fraud is taking place at the rate the GOP/TP tells you to believe. Proof of this (bolded) assertion? Simply look up all the previous threads on 'voter fraud' and 'voter photo ID', DS. You'll find plenty of posts of yours and other conservative/libertarians that voter fraud is way out of control. And plenty of links from everyone else showing those bits of information....researched, studied, and analyzed. The conclusions explain the same consistent pattern: There are very reasonable, simple, and verifiable circumstances that the conservative media failed to report. So the question became: Why did the conservative media fail to do their journalistic duties to follow up and determine the truth from fantasy? And we all know why.....conservative media....doesn't hire people that think for themselves and are journalists! The thing tyrants hate most is a liberal journalist asking direct and serious questions. So everyone that has been on this forum for a while, knows your full of shit here. Including you! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The cost of getting a birth certificate is real. I do not deny that. There can be a cost to getting an ID outside of the actual ID (many states provide them for free, but that doesn't include travel costs). I'm good with having a program to help those without ID's who want them to get them. There is an abundant amount of Americans that do not have a birth certificate, even though they were born within the United States or conform to other ways in which one would become a US Citizen. What your stating here is that you don't trust your fellow Americans nor give them the benefit of doubt. Got any citation for an "abundant amount of Americans" without birth cert's? How many of those don't already have ID's? How many of those without ID's are likely voters anyway? Source # 1 56 Do you have any idea HOW MANY SOURCES I can unleash? That wasn't even the tip of the iceberg, DS. Anyone with basic researching skills can find many more examples. The fact that you have no problem with US Citizens not being able to vote, that wish to vote, is very troubling to any real American..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source # 2 And, this would be taken care of with a program (that I've already stated support for) to help these people get the required documentation, logistically and financially. Once again, though, this article is about people who are of "voter age." That means little, actually. That doesn't necessarily translate into "likely voters." I do have to wonder how many of the ID-less "voting age" people were already registered. That might show how likely they are to vote in the first place, no? Why....Should....They? To appease you, Your Royal Highest? Your accusing them of being dishonest without an ounce of evidence to back up your claims. Here is a better question: Why should they get a photo ID in the first place? When (as I stated in previous threads), the ability to obtain fake Photo IDs are pretty simple? You, Mr. "Limited Government" wish to add ANOTHER layer of government, that has already been proven to be....EASILY....compromised. As I stated in those threads, that bartenders in and around the 164 colleges and universities in and around Boston, MA routinely obtain training to spot fake ideas. Why is that, DS? Could it be that its well observed that under age drinking takes place in those college years? If its easy to do in one place, how tough is it to do in other places? Where the poll workers do not have access to that training and testing on a daily basis? And I recall in those threads....YOU...didn't have an answer. Have one now? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source # 3 http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/indiana-turnout-not-affected-by-voter-id-requirement/article_a385924c-8e14-5926-9d1d-600b7190e065.html Did you bother to read the FIRST LINE? " Indiana's nearly decade-long experiment requiring voters produce photo identification to obtain a ballot likely isn't to blame for the state's lackluster voter turnout." Republicans established early on in this 'bullshit' viewpoint that Vote IDs would improve voter turnout? Or have you conveniently forgotten US History? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/03/minority-turnout-impacted-by-georgia-voter-id-law/ You use a conservative editorial site (i.e. like The Drudge Report), to make an argument here? LOL! The 'reporter' of the piece (not to be confused with the ACTUAL reporter) does not show any evidence that the voter ID laws actually made improvements on a system that did not suffer from voter fraud previously. Its like building a large damn (think the Hoover Dam) for a twinkle of water no wider then three inches and no deeper than an eighth of an inch. If there was a raging river, I could understand. Or at least a good size stream. Try objectively reading this information, DS. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://www.propublica.org/article/what-effect-if-any-did-voter-id-laws-have-on-the-election From your link: "“Of all the issues relating to voting rules, voter ID got the most attention but was probably the least significant, mainly because we didn’t have it in Pennsylvania,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California-Irvine who specializes in election law." Now why was it insignificant? The reason is simple: You have to have something ACUTALLY HAPPENING to notice a difference. Voter Fraud before those laws went into effect were non existent. So here are Republicans in that state spending piles of money on an issue that was and still is irrelevant (and the evidence supports it). And you don't have a problem with it, Mr. "Limited Government"? Seems "limited government" is only for those things you don't need or make use of.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444868204578064890976575334 This article is trying to make perdictions of possible results before an election on the basis of how voter ID laws interact. The problem is, no one cares of an outdated article. Its like my outdated powerball jackpot stubs that didn't net me a pile of money..... There exist evidence more recent that looks at those numbers in a more objective manner. The findings are that the voter ID laws did not make any reasonable improvements compared to the cost in resources to bring about those improvements. Its like the US Government spending $1200 on a hammer I bought from SEARS for $9. How much more is the government's hammer (which is nearly identical to mine on a molecular level) better than mine? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084598 You DID read through all 28 pages of this document, before posting this one......RIGHT? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether And that those without voter ID's tend to vote for freedom and democracy, rather than tyranny and oppression. Horseshit. Your the one wishing to place more hurdles rather than less, for the average citizen to vote in elections. What sort of person would place tighter and tighter restrictions on voting, when the reasons for those restrictions are not based on anything reasonable, verifiable, or studied? I would think someone in favor of 'Limited Government' would be in favor of...LESS GOVERMENT REGULATION....rather than more? But as I've already pointed out, you want the "Limited Government" in only limited instances, and not 'across the board'. If it was across the board, THEN, you could say your in favor of Limited Government; but then you'd have to agree with me that voter ID laws are stupid and unconstitutional. But you cant do it, because the conservative media (i.e. state run media) tells you what to think and do. You obey their talking points rather than have your own mind and view on this topic. How do I know this? You have yet to challenge.....ANY....of my links or viewpoints. Not with solid arguments nor evidence. Where as I've answered each of your questions and links. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I see who people vote for and hear why they placed those votes. Yeah, I don't trust a lot of American voters. You see who people actually voted for? So, lets be clear before I call the FBI: You snuck into the actual voting booth and observed people voting in private, which is allowed under our form of government? Hey, Joether, there's this really fucking neat thing we have in the US now. I'm assuming they have it other places, too, but I won't speak for other countries. Here, we call them, "election results." It shows who people voted for. Amazing what people come up with anymore, innit? Are you REALLY this obvious to the nature of this thread and the previous ones? Your arguing that voter fraud takes place and is rampant. But all your evidence has been systematically debunked with facts and research. We are not talking who voted for what, but HOW THEY VOTED. You have not shown one piece of verifiable, solid, evidence that voter fraud is taking place in the hundreds or thousands (let alone the few millions to actually affect a vote). I've shown plenty of evidence that while voter fraud has indeed happen, its measured in individual cases and numbers less than 1000, for the over billion votes cast in elections since 2000. Why don't you argue to me that pink unicorns with purple stripes, yellow pokka-dots, and white stars....exist....in reality. You'd have a better chance with that one that all your 'evidence' and 'facts' to date...... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Thanks to the Affordable Cart Act of 2010, you can obtain therapy to help treat that paranoia you seem to have..... Thanks to my working, I can afford to pay for insurance... Where as before you would have been paying more, for less benefits, less protections, and more risks. Now, its much easier to obtain; its called 'the scale of economies'. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether But that doesn't explain why they should get such a ID in the first place to vote. They state who they are and where they live. It is up to someone else to not only challenge them, but show evidence. Again, that's pure horseshit. Liar: "I'm John Q Public from 123 Main St." Poll Worker: Here you go, John. Please sign here. Me: That's not John Q Public. I live at 125 Main St and am John's neighbor, and I know for certain that is not John Q Public. Ok, I'll walk you through how the law works in this case.... The accuser (you), would have to explain to a police officer that is typically on hand at the voting station (a judge of law) that the accused (i.e. the other person) is not true for one of three reasons: A ) They are not who they say they are, B ) They do not live where they say they live. C ) A combination of A and B. The police officer could then ask the accused to verify their information. Under US Law, the accused person (whether guilty or innocent) is not forced to give such information under the 4th or 5th amendments. Nor give that information to their accuser, whom could be an identity thief! The police officer takes out their smart phone (the police in Massachusetts are all issued one). They get the Mass DMV app (a law enforcement app), and plug in the name and/or address that accused originally gave (the accused can stay silent this entire time, under the law, thanks to the 5th amendment). The app will give the driver's license of the individual. This will include a PHOTO ID, their address, license #, driving restrictions, and past violations of the law. The police officer can also contact their police department for further information on the person's possible criminal violations as well. So all the police officer has to do is hold the smartphone and PHOTO ID of the individual up to the accused person's face to make a determination of possible guilt or not. The police officer is under no duty nor obligation to release....ANY...of the information to the accuser. Anyone that accused me of not being who I say I am nor living where I say I lived.....would get sued for every possible penny they own. So that idiot better be ready for a hellish court battle! An individual when accused of....ANY CRIME....from jaywalking to capital murder, is considered....INNCOENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....in a COURT OF LAW. You are aware of how the legal laws work in America, right? That there is a US Constitution and within it, a series of twenty-seven amendments? So, I don't actually have to prove that some guy is actually not who he says he is to get an officer to ask for ID? What happens if the person doesn't have a Driver's License? Kinda throws out that whole Mass DMV thingy, no? Good question. Here is an answer: "Sir/Ma'am, do you have any records on file with the town/city that may help in verifying your information?" "Yes, Sir, I could give you an example of my signature that is on file in the town hall records, if you like?" That might take a while, but still not prove entirely of truth, right? So lets try the ace in the hole: "I tell you what officer, How about you, the accuser and myself travel to the location in question. We'll see if this key (holds up key that unlocks a specific lock) unlocks the door. Within that door on the cabinet nearby is a photograph of myself and family. We could sit down and look through the scrapbooks too! We could even talk to my neighbors. I'll introduce you to them, and you can ask 'is this person 'Joe Q. Public'? And I'm sure they will give the correct response." Is this time consuming? Hell yeah. You want to REALLY combat voter fraud? Get people to get involved in community organizations and activities. Volunteer one's time and resources does establish not just good will and improvements to one's emotional/mental health; but does establish an identity with law enforcement. Particularly if you are involved with children. In Massachusetts, one typically has a 'CORI' check. Telling the officer "Sir, I have a CORI with the town." So here I have laid out additional avenues. All of which the person's 4th amendment rights are protected. But I feel the accuser has to present some good evidence to the police officer that the person they are accusing is not one of three situations I explained above. Because that is how our form of justice works in this nation! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is that to be proven? I can show my ID showing that I live right next door to John Q Public. I could also have it out for the guy and make the claim to spite him. What you're advocating is for people to not actually have to prove they are who they say they are. Why is that such a bad thing? The fact that you can not imagine how this process would work speaks volumes of your creativity. Not to mention education, knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. People DONT have to prove it, DS, that's the WHOLE POINT OF THE 4th AMENDMENT: 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. Being a conservative and related to gun nuts, you tend to ignore those parts of the amendments that are politically inconvenient for you and your arguments. Unfortunately for you, the WHOLE law has to be followed. What part of it not being unreasonable do you not get?!? Is it too long of a word? Its unreasonable. I've stated who I am and where I live. If anyone wishes to challenge me, let them. They have the burden of evidence to produce, not me. I've stated above the reasons in each of these parts. Since stating who I am and where I live is almost like being in court and under oath. If the information is not correct, did I break the law? Not exactly (which is why its different from a court). I could be at the wrong voting booth. Maybe the information I submitted to the town hall was not files correctly or inaccurately. Maybe the polling station's records are not up to date. There exists many multiples of reasons. All very understandable and reasonable issues that could come up; none of which would be illegal. An I've stated this too in the past and on several threads. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, again, how do we know that the person voting is actually a citizen of the US? We ask them. "Are you a US Citizen?" "Yes" "Can you prove it?" "Yes, but why should I? I have a 4th amendment right under the US Constitution. Or do you want to challenge my Constitutional Rights?" Would you challenge another person's Constitutional Right to vote, DS? Knowing nothing about the person other than they just walked in to vote? Bullying me, now? Really? The 4th Amendment - for the however many times it's been - is a protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I submit that this isn't really a search or a seizure, and isn't an unreasonable request to begin with. And who decides if its unreasonable, DS? The Government or myself, the individual citizen? I feel its unreasonable that I have to be searched when I give such truthful and factual information when I state who I am and where I live. Given the depth of evidence and studies performed to date, I find voter fraud to not be a problem in elections. That conservatives like you, get OWNED in these debates because you lack the evidence and facts to support baseless accusations. That the conservative media behaves like a tyrannical state media service; spewing out false and misleading information to its mindless followers. You can not counter any of my arguments, because the media hasn't give you any talking points! Seems like there are several states who have decided that requiring a photo ID isn't unreasonable, and the SCOTUS has already ruled on some, stating that they pass Constitutional muster... So, maybe you could get back in contact with your mind and think for yourself? Didn't think so. Yes, the states that passed it didn't think it was unreasonable, DS. And which party held a MAJORITY in each of those states? (DRUM ROLL) The Republican/Tea Party.......BIG SUPRISE, eh? Please tell me your not...THIS...stupid and uninformed in not knowing the facts? You would have to be 'cluster frack stupid' not to understand this..... I would like to think your not.... Really? Five persons on that US Supreme Court that feel not only corporations are people, but their religious rights trump individual US Citizens? That they can do an 'end run around the 2nd amendment' which they are not allowed to do, Constitutionally speaking on the Heller vs. DC case? Or that 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' is 'ok', and not torture? Are you of the belief that the US Supreme Court can NEVER make mistakes? They are human. It would be reasonable to assume they are just as capable as anyone else in making mistakes, right? But they didn't make mistakes, DS. They ruled in favor of the Republican/Tea Party, NOT, the US Constitution. What site are we on, DS? Collarspace.com, right? What sort of site is Collarspace.com? A....BDSM....site? Would people that perform SM know the differences between "SM" and "Torture"? You better believe they would! Can people be tortured that are under the US Government's control? The answer is....NO... It's call the 8th Amendment! So how do these conservative justices get around the issue of torturing people captured in a foreign land? They are called 'enemy combatants'. Which is bullshit by any reasonable view. Would you have trouble if the US Supreme Court's five of nine Justices were liberal? On....ANY...of these court cases and others? Of course you would. You have...NO PROBLEM...of them ignoring the 4th and 5th amendments? I might have problems with some of them too. It would come down to how they ruled on the issue(s). But I wont have to worry about it myself. I live in the state where this nation got its start in blood! I live a stone's throw from North Bridge. Us Massholes tear up bullshit when we hear it. We get pretty damn vocal, yet, remain civilized.

tweakabelle -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 3:15:40 AM)
quote: Desideri Scuri It's not politics. I happen to agree with the need for Voter ID's and don't think it's an unreasonable request. Sadly whatever any of us may claim, and regardless of any merits or demerits of the arguments, this is a political issue, driven by the Right of politics. That is the context in which this discussion occurs and there's nothing any of us can do to change that. While for me there is no question about your sincerity, your denial of the very obvious context of this discussion ("It's not politics") stretches the limits of credibility. You may very well be focussed on the merits and demerits of the issue but the people on the Right driving this issue are far more concerned with stretching the Right's voting figures and minimising those of others. It would greatly help your case if you could produce some evidence that positively establishes the existence of a problem with current arrangements, but you have proved either unable or unwilling to do so. That leaves me with little alternative than to examine the motives of those pushing the issue. The Right has a very long history of disenfranchising minority voters - back to Jim Crow days - and recent experience of how underhand tactics such as this can make all the difference - Florida 2000, where wholesale disenfranchising of black voters enabled Bush to crawl across the line in the State, and ultimately into the White House. This strategy - systematically disenfranchising voters perceived to be hostile to the Right - was the last successful strategy to deliver the Presidency to the Right. No doubt that fact is chiselled into the memory of GOP strategists. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that there is a real problem that requires solving, the Right's distasteful history on this issue offers the only clue why this issue is being pushed by the people who are pushing it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 3:24:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? Um, I'm arguing for an idea that I think is a damn good idea, actually. In case you haven't noticed, I don't agree with everything some "conservative" mouthpiece spouts. I don't know if you participated, but I disagreed with Dr. Larry Arnn from Hillsdale College in the Constitution Minute #11. The idea being the government can search you at any time for any reason? Not just when you may have run afoul with the breaking a law? Am I not allowed my privacy? Besides I don't recall the first couple of elections in America needed to check one's photo ID to determine if someone was a citizen or not. Back in the days when there was trust and goodwill for one's fellow citizens. Have we fallen so much, that we force people to prove their innocence when they vote? That breaks a central concept of the US Constitution. You want to play that game? We didn't have to buy health insurance, or pay income tax, either. quote: No, you don't agree with every conservative mouthpiece on subjects ranging far a wide. But we are not discussing those other subjects at the moment, are we? We are talking on the merits of voter fraud and voter photo ID. On this discussion, you agree completely with those conservative mouthpieces! For two reasons. The first is that you have not establish an argument for why you or the government should be allowed to violate my 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. No, I am not. This is not unreasonable, therefore, not a violation of your right against unreasonable search and seizure. quote: That you would accuse me of a crime without due process, lawyer, or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Do you even realize how many parts of the US Constitution and its 27 amendments you have to mow down just to arrive at this viewpoint in reality? The second is I've established that while voter fraud has taken place; the rate at which it is taking place is very different from you and the conservative media's perceptions. You see it as rampant, out of control, and evil. I see it as a collection of cased of individual fraudulent votes numbering no more than one hundred out of the billion or so votes cast since the year 2000. The difference DS? I have evidence to back my claims up. You have....NOTHING! The right to vote is only afforded to US Citizens. How are we to protect that right unless we make sure only citizens are voting? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether There are many threads others and myself simply do not enter into. That is most often due to not having a political connection to what is being discussed/argued. It is a well established fact, that you have a political interest. I based this argument on the number of posts to this thread, and the number of posts to previous threads on this subject (i.e. Voter Fraud and/or Voter Photo ID Laws). That you can not be honest to yourself and others...ALSO....speaks volumes.... Not really, Joether. It's not politics. I happen to agree with the need for Voter ID's and don't think it's an unreasonable request. And, you have absolutely no clue about my honesty. If you wish to surrender your 4th and 5th amendment rights for some safety, go right on ahead. When that bites you in the ass, don't come complaining to all of us! Logically speaking, what is next? Can the government also observe who and what you vote on? We have to make sure you are not trying to corrupt the vote, right? Its a pretty easy and logical 'next step'. After that, post to the public how you voted. You already removed your privacy for public record, so your 1st amendment rights are simply irrelevant. You assume the NSA doesn't already know these things. I'm not as trusting as you are. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, for the record, your conclusions means barely more to me than Joether's. Yes, facts and evidence don't matter. Only what state run propagan.....er....conservative media tells you to think. Time and again, you have had your arguments destroyed...utterly....by facts and evidence. The only possible way you can reach your viewpoint is if your a 'fanatic to the cause'. Which is to say, no amount of evidence or facts will change your viewpoint. That you can not be reasoned with. That you are so conditioned and programmed, that you might as well be a mindless drone serving your masters in the GOP/TP. In which case, should we even allow you the freedoms of being a US Citizen, since we don't give the same to robots at the current time? Again, you're fucking clueless about me. What "state run" propaganda or "conservative media" do I get my info from? And, your "conclusions" are more accurately spelled, "delusions." Do I REALLY have to bring up...EVERY...single example from previous threads and this one, in which you brought false and debunked material on this topic? You have made claims in the past that 'x' number of votes were questionable; yet didn't bother to present the evidence I was able to find in 10 seconds of a goggle searches displaying that information as false and/or misleading. Either you knew about the follow up evidence and didn't say anything at each instance (i.e. dishonesty), or you didn't know how to check for updated information (i.e. an clueless). Your either dishonest or clueless; which is it? What you conclude to be false and debunked are the delusions, Joether. They are viewed through your partisan lens. In yoru world, if I don't agree with you or the Democrats, I'm either dishonest or clueless. I assure you, I am neither. quote: I've presented the evidence time and again. Laid down facts in my arguments. And you have yet to refute one claim. So, you have not a leg to stand on in this discussion. Yet another delusion.

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 3:36:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Joether: If I have to show an ID at the supermarket or the drugstore or Walmart to prove my credit card is valid, tell me why that's ok, but why somehow it's fine for a Walmart purchase but not fine for voting? Or is voting << Walmart purchase? This is a good question. Here is the answer.... Each of these entities (i.e. supermarket, drugstore and/or Wal-Mart), are not governments under our definition of the our laws. Are corporations, governments (i.e. Wal-Mart)? Yes. But, they are not governments under our definitions of the word 'government'. For example, open up any of the firearm laws that have passed or not in recent years. Within each of those documents, it explains the definitions of each part of the firearm (i.e. stock, trigger, sight(s), etc.). The definition has been agreed upon by all parties , to be entered into the bill itself. Usually, they are just repeats from previous bills that have been turned into law in years past. The government can not directly ask for identification from an individual person without a good and established reason. The 4th amendment is often cited as the process by which the government has to go about dealing with persons whom they are in contact with on an issue of relevance. Notice here, I use 'person' and not 'US Citizen'? That is because the US Constitution's purpose is to govern all persons found under its control (not just US citizens). So tourists from another country are afforded a 5th amendment right when accused by law enforcement of doing something wrong. So what would be a 'good and established reason'? For starters, if the person in question is accused of something that would allow the 'probable cause' section of the 4th amendment to take place. Also, many government records and documents require photo IDs (i.e. US Passports) This has been held up in courts on the grounds that the 4th amendment, like each of the other amendments has exceptions to the law (do a google search on 1st amendment exceptions to see examples). In addition, you might be forced to show a photo ID at government/military locations due to a number of set reasons. HOWEVER, the fifth part of the 1st amendment (most US Citizens cant name one of the five parts...) allows a citizen to sue the government over grievances. Which means, if you feel a government law or regulation violates your 4th amendment rights (or any other amendments), you can take the matter to court and have it heard by a judge. Which is how many cases get their start before going up the process of the Judicial branch of our government. But this hasn't explained your question fully, I know. I'm now getting to it. I needed to establish a basis for where the viewpoint is originating. To be the best of my knowledge the above is correct.... So, why do you have to show ID to buy a pack of smokes at the drugstore? The reason is that states (and later the federal government) pass laws requiring the seller to perform the checking and not the government itself. As you might imagine, this has produced quite a 'few' cases over the years. Pertaining not just to drugs, but firearms, tobacco, vehicles, explosives, food, and other assorted goods and/or services. You can research to your heart's delight in your local library for how each of the cases ended. I'll take the reasonable guess that the question/grievance and supporting evidence by the person in court was not 'good enough' (for lack of a better phrase here) to warrant a judge ruling in favor of the person bringing the case to court.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 3:48:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether There is voter fraud, DS. But its the rate it happens that is under scrutiny. You argue....without evidence....that voter fraud is taking place at the rate the GOP/TP tells you to believe. Proof of this (bolded) assertion? Simply look up all the previous threads on 'voter fraud' and 'voter photo ID', DS. You'll find plenty of posts of yours and other conservative/libertarians that voter fraud is way out of control. And plenty of links from everyone else showing those bits of information....researched, studied, and analyzed. The conclusions explain the same consistent pattern: There are very reasonable, simple, and verifiable circumstances that the conservative media failed to report. So the question became: Why did the conservative media fail to do their journalistic duties to follow up and determine the truth from fantasy? And we all know why.....conservative media....doesn't hire people that think for themselves and are journalists! The thing tyrants hate most is a liberal journalist asking direct and serious questions. IOW, no, you have no proof that I make the claim that voter fraud is taking place at the rate the GOP/TP tells me to believe. Another related question... how do the GOP or Tea Party tell me what to believe? quote: So everyone that has been on this forum for a while, knows your full of shit here. Including you! Actually, I have regular movements, so I don't get full of shit. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The cost of getting a birth certificate is real. I do not deny that. There can be a cost to getting an ID outside of the actual ID (many states provide them for free, but that doesn't include travel costs). I'm good with having a program to help those without ID's who want them to get them. There is an abundant amount of Americans that do not have a birth certificate, even though they were born within the United States or conform to other ways in which one would become a US Citizen. What your stating here is that you don't trust your fellow Americans nor give them the benefit of doubt. Got any citation for an "abundant amount of Americans" without birth cert's? How many of those don't already have ID's? How many of those without ID's are likely voters anyway? Source # 1 56 Do you have any idea HOW MANY SOURCES I can unleash? That wasn't even the tip of the iceberg, DS. Anyone with basic researching skills can find many more examples. The fact that you have no problem with US Citizens not being able to vote, that wish to vote, is very troubling to any real American..... Right, because I support programs helping them get acceptable ID's... quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source # 2 And, this would be taken care of with a program (that I've already stated support for) to help these people get the required documentation, logistically and financially. Once again, though, this article is about people who are of "voter age." That means little, actually. That doesn't necessarily translate into "likely voters." I do have to wonder how many of the ID-less "voting age" people were already registered. That might show how likely they are to vote in the first place, no? Why....Should....They? To appease you, Your Royal Highest? Your accusing them of being dishonest without an ounce of evidence to back up your claims. Here is a better question: Why should they get a photo ID in the first place? When (as I stated in previous threads), the ability to obtain fake Photo IDs are pretty simple? You, Mr. "Limited Government" wish to add ANOTHER layer of government, that has already been proven to be....EASILY....compromised. As I stated in those threads, that bartenders in and around the 164 colleges and universities in and around Boston, MA routinely obtain training to spot fake ideas. Why is that, DS? Could it be that its well observed that under age drinking takes place in those college years? If its easy to do in one place, how tough is it to do in other places? Where the poll workers do not have access to that training and testing on a daily basis? And I recall in those threads....YOU...didn't have an answer. Have one now? Why should they get a photo ID? To prove they are who they are? Isn't ID theft a problem in your world? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source # 3 http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/indiana-turnout-not-affected-by-voter-id-requirement/article_a385924c-8e14-5926-9d1d-600b7190e065.html Did you bother to read the FIRST LINE? " Indiana's nearly decade-long experiment requiring voters produce photo identification to obtain a ballot likely isn't to blame for the state's lackluster voter turnout." Republicans established early on in this 'bullshit' viewpoint that Vote IDs would improve voter turnout? Or have you conveniently forgotten US History? Um, no, it's the Democrat party line that voter ID would reduce voter turnout. Perhaps you should read the sentence you quoted for comprehension... quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/03/minority-turnout-impacted-by-georgia-voter-id-law/ You use a conservative editorial site (i.e. like The Drudge Report), to make an argument here? LOL! The 'reporter' of the piece (not to be confused with the ACTUAL reporter) does not show any evidence that the voter ID laws actually made improvements on a system that did not suffer from voter fraud previously. Its like building a large damn (think the Hoover Dam) for a twinkle of water no wider then three inches and no deeper than an eighth of an inch. If there was a raging river, I could understand. Or at least a good size stream. Try objectively reading this information, DS. The "reporter" of the piece also showed that the hysterical claims of the Democrats didn't happen. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://www.propublica.org/article/what-effect-if-any-did-voter-id-laws-have-on-the-election From your link: "“Of all the issues relating to voting rules, voter ID got the most attention but was probably the least significant, mainly because we didn’t have it in Pennsylvania,” said Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California-Irvine who specializes in election law." Now why was it insignificant? The reason is simple: You have to have something ACUTALLY HAPPENING to notice a difference. Voter Fraud before those laws went into effect were non existent. So here are Republicans in that state spending piles of money on an issue that was and still is irrelevant (and the evidence supports it). And you don't have a problem with it, Mr. "Limited Government"? Seems "limited government" is only for those things you don't need or make use of.... If you read the article, PA didn't have voter ID laws in effect. Interestingly enough, since the law wasn't in effect, it's significance would be pretty low, no? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444868204578064890976575334 This article is trying to make perdictions of possible results before an election on the basis of how voter ID laws interact. The problem is, no one cares of an outdated article. Its like my outdated powerball jackpot stubs that didn't net me a pile of money..... There exist evidence more recent that looks at those numbers in a more objective manner. The findings are that the voter ID laws did not make any reasonable improvements compared to the cost in resources to bring about those improvements. Its like the US Government spending $1200 on a hammer I bought from SEARS for $9. How much more is the government's hammer (which is nearly identical to mine on a molecular level) better than mine? I have cited sources showing that the effects screeched about by Democrats didn't come to pass after Voter ID laws went into effect. But, I don't expect you to see that. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084598 You DID read through all 28 pages of this document, before posting this one......RIGHT? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether And that those without voter ID's tend to vote for freedom and democracy, rather than tyranny and oppression. Horseshit. Your the one wishing to place more hurdles rather than less, for the average citizen to vote in elections. What sort of person would place tighter and tighter restrictions on voting, when the reasons for those restrictions are not based on anything reasonable, verifiable, or studied? I would think someone in favor of 'Limited Government' would be in favor of...LESS GOVERMENT REGULATION....rather than more? But as I've already pointed out, you want the "Limited Government" in only limited instances, and not 'across the board'. If it was across the board, THEN, you could say your in favor of Limited Government; but then you'd have to agree with me that voter ID laws are stupid and unconstitutional. But you cant do it, because the conservative media (i.e. state run media) tells you what to think and do. You obey their talking points rather than have your own mind and view on this topic. How do I know this? You have yet to challenge.....ANY....of my links or viewpoints. Not with solid arguments nor evidence. Where as I've answered each of your questions and links. Once again, you're twisting the use of the word "limited." But, I'm used to that. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I see who people vote for and hear why they placed those votes. Yeah, I don't trust a lot of American voters. You see who people actually voted for? So, lets be clear before I call the FBI: You snuck into the actual voting booth and observed people voting in private, which is allowed under our form of government? Hey, Joether, there's this really fucking neat thing we have in the US now. I'm assuming they have it other places, too, but I won't speak for other countries. Here, we call them, "election results." It shows who people voted for. Amazing what people come up with anymore, innit? Are you REALLY this obvious to the nature of this thread and the previous ones? Your arguing that voter fraud takes place and is rampant. But all your evidence has been systematically debunked with facts and research. We are not talking who voted for what, but HOW THEY VOTED. You have not shown one piece of verifiable, solid, evidence that voter fraud is taking place in the hundreds or thousands (let alone the few millions to actually affect a vote). I've shown plenty of evidence that while voter fraud has indeed happen, its measured in individual cases and numbers less than 1000, for the over billion votes cast in elections since 2000. Why don't you argue to me that pink unicorns with purple stripes, yellow pokka-dots, and white stars....exist....in reality. You'd have a better chance with that one that all your 'evidence' and 'facts' to date...... Where have I ever argued that "voter fraud takes place and is rampant?" quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Thanks to the Affordable Cart Act of 2010, you can obtain therapy to help treat that paranoia you seem to have..... Thanks to my working, I can afford to pay for insurance... Where as before you would have been paying more, for less benefits, less protections, and more risks. Now, its much easier to obtain; its called 'the scale of economies'. Interestingly enough, my ex pays less, for more benefits, more protections, and fewer risks, and has for years now. There is no "economy of scale" in effect. All there is is a shell game taking more from one to give to another. That's not an economy of scale. That's just greater redistribution. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether But that doesn't explain why they should get such a ID in the first place to vote. They state who they are and where they live. It is up to someone else to not only challenge them, but show evidence. Again, that's pure horseshit. Liar: "I'm John Q Public from 123 Main St." Poll Worker: Here you go, John. Please sign here. Me: That's not John Q Public. I live at 125 Main St and am John's neighbor, and I know for certain that is not John Q Public. Ok, I'll walk you through how the law works in this case.... The accuser (you), would have to explain to a police officer that is typically on hand at the voting station (a judge of law) that the accused (i.e. the other person) is not true for one of three reasons: A ) They are not who they say they are, B ) They do not live where they say they live. C ) A combination of A and B. The police officer could then ask the accused to verify their information. Under US Law, the accused person (whether guilty or innocent) is not forced to give such information under the 4th or 5th amendments. Nor give that information to their accuser, whom could be an identity thief! The police officer takes out their smart phone (the police in Massachusetts are all issued one). They get the Mass DMV app (a law enforcement app), and plug in the name and/or address that accused originally gave (the accused can stay silent this entire time, under the law, thanks to the 5th amendment). The app will give the driver's license of the individual. This will include a PHOTO ID, their address, license #, driving restrictions, and past violations of the law. The police officer can also contact their police department for further information on the person's possible criminal violations as well. So all the police officer has to do is hold the smartphone and PHOTO ID of the individual up to the accused person's face to make a determination of possible guilt or not. The police officer is under no duty nor obligation to release....ANY...of the information to the accuser. Anyone that accused me of not being who I say I am nor living where I say I lived.....would get sued for every possible penny they own. So that idiot better be ready for a hellish court battle! An individual when accused of....ANY CRIME....from jaywalking to capital murder, is considered....INNCOENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....in a COURT OF LAW. You are aware of how the legal laws work in America, right? That there is a US Constitution and within it, a series of twenty-seven amendments? So, I don't actually have to prove that some guy is actually not who he says he is to get an officer to ask for ID? What happens if the person doesn't have a Driver's License? Kinda throws out that whole Mass DMV thingy, no? Good question. Here is an answer: "Sir/Ma'am, do you have any records on file with the town/city that may help in verifying your information?" "Yes, Sir, I could give you an example of my signature that is on file in the town hall records, if you like?" That might take a while, but still not prove entirely of truth, right? So lets try the ace in the hole: "I tell you what officer, How about you, the accuser and myself travel to the location in question. We'll see if this key (holds up key that unlocks a specific lock) unlocks the door. Within that door on the cabinet nearby is a photograph of myself and family. We could sit down and look through the scrapbooks too! We could even talk to my neighbors. I'll introduce you to them, and you can ask 'is this person 'Joe Q. Public'? And I'm sure they will give the correct response." Is this time consuming? Hell yeah. In your little scenario, you failed to continue the rules laid out where the one person was a liar that was being called out. quote: You want to REALLY combat voter fraud? Get people to get involved in community organizations and activities. Volunteer one's time and resources does establish not just good will and improvements to one's emotional/mental health; but does establish an identity with law enforcement. Particularly if you are involved with children. In Massachusetts, one typically has a 'CORI' check. Telling the officer "Sir, I have a CORI with the town." So here I have laid out additional avenues. All of which the person's 4th amendment rights are protected. But I feel the accuser has to present some good evidence to the police officer that the person they are accusing is not one of three situations I explained above. Because that is how our form of justice works in this nation! That would be nice, but I'm not concerned about proving my identity. I have a driver's license when I go to vote. Any CORI check that I might get done isn't going to combat voter fraud whatsoever. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri How is that to be proven? I can show my ID showing that I live right next door to John Q Public. I could also have it out for the guy and make the claim to spite him. What you're advocating is for people to not actually have to prove they are who they say they are. Why is that such a bad thing? The fact that you can not imagine how this process would work speaks volumes of your creativity. Not to mention education, knowledge, intelligence and wisdom. People DONT have to prove it, DS, that's the WHOLE POINT OF THE 4th AMENDMENT: 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. Being a conservative and related to gun nuts, you tend to ignore those parts of the amendments that are politically inconvenient for you and your arguments. Unfortunately for you, the WHOLE law has to be followed. What part of it not being unreasonable do you not get?!? Is it too long of a word? Its unreasonable. I've stated who I am and where I live. If anyone wishes to challenge me, let them. They have the burden of evidence to produce, not me. I've stated above the reasons in each of these parts. Since stating who I am and where I live is almost like being in court and under oath. If the information is not correct, did I break the law? Not exactly (which is why its different from a court). I could be at the wrong voting booth. Maybe the information I submitted to the town hall was not files correctly or inaccurately. Maybe the polling station's records are not up to date. There exists many multiples of reasons. All very understandable and reasonable issues that could come up; none of which would be illegal. An I've stated this too in the past and on several threads. And, the next guy could be lying. But, we'll never know, will we? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri But, again, how do we know that the person voting is actually a citizen of the US? We ask them. "Are you a US Citizen?" "Yes" "Can you prove it?" "Yes, but why should I? I have a 4th amendment right under the US Constitution. Or do you want to challenge my Constitutional Rights?" Would you challenge another person's Constitutional Right to vote, DS? Knowing nothing about the person other than they just walked in to vote? Bullying me, now? Really? The 4th Amendment - for the however many times it's been - is a protection against unreasonable search and seizure. I submit that this isn't really a search or a seizure, and isn't an unreasonable request to begin with. And who decides if its unreasonable, DS? The Government or myself, the individual citizen? I feel its unreasonable that I have to be searched when I give such truthful and factual information when I state who I am and where I live. Given the depth of evidence and studies performed to date, I find voter fraud to not be a problem in elections. That conservatives like you, get OWNED in these debates because you lack the evidence and facts to support baseless accusations. That the conservative media behaves like a tyrannical state media service; spewing out false and misleading information to its mindless followers. You can not counter any of my arguments, because the media hasn't give you any talking points! Seems like there are several states who have decided that requiring a photo ID isn't unreasonable, and the SCOTUS has already ruled on some, stating that they pass Constitutional muster... So, maybe you could get back in contact with your mind and think for yourself? Didn't think so. Yes, the states that passed it didn't think it was unreasonable, DS. And which party held a MAJORITY in each of those states? (DRUM ROLL) The Republican/Tea Party.......BIG SUPRISE, eh? Please tell me your not...THIS...stupid and uninformed in not knowing the facts? You would have to be 'cluster frack stupid' not to understand this..... I would like to think your not.... Really? Five persons on that US Supreme Court that feel not only corporations are people, but their religious rights trump individual US Citizens? That they can do an 'end run around the 2nd amendment' which they are not allowed to do, Constitutionally speaking on the Heller vs. DC case? Or that 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' is 'ok', and not torture? Are you of the belief that the US Supreme Court can NEVER make mistakes? They are human. It would be reasonable to assume they are just as capable as anyone else in making mistakes, right? But they didn't make mistakes, DS. They ruled in favor of the Republican/Tea Party, NOT, the US Constitution. What site are we on, DS? Collarspace.com, right? What sort of site is Collarspace.com? A....BDSM....site? Would people that perform SM know the differences between "SM" and "Torture"? You better believe they would! Can people be tortured that are under the US Government's control? The answer is....NO... It's call the 8th Amendment! So how do these conservative justices get around the issue of torturing people captured in a foreign land? They are called 'enemy combatants'. Which is bullshit by any reasonable view. Would you have trouble if the US Supreme Court's five of nine Justices were liberal? On....ANY...of these court cases and others? Of course you would. You have...NO PROBLEM...of them ignoring the 4th and 5th amendments? I might have problems with some of them too. It would come down to how they ruled on the issue(s). But I wont have to worry about it myself. I live in the state where this nation got its start in blood! I live a stone's throw from North Bridge. Us Massholes tear up bullshit when we hear it. We get pretty damn vocal, yet, remain civilized. So, you go off the rails about the SCOTUS being conservative, which is, apparently, the only reason voter ID laws passed. http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/06/17/scotus-rules-on-voter-id/ 7-2

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 3:51:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: Desideri Scuri It's not politics. I happen to agree with the need for Voter ID's and don't think it's an unreasonable request. Sadly whatever any of us may claim, and regardless of any merits or demerits of the arguments, this is a political issue, driven by the Right of politics. That is the context in which this discussion occurs and there's nothing any of us can do to change that. While for me there is no question about your sincerity, your denial of the very obvious context of this discussion ("It's not politics") stretches the limits of credibility. You may very well be focussed on the merits and demerits of the issue but the people on the Right driving this issue are far more concerned with stretching the Right's voting figures and minimising those of others. It would greatly help your case if you could produce some evidence that positively establishes the existence of a problem with current arrangements, but you have proved either unable or unwilling to do so. That leaves me with little alternative than to examine the motives of those pushing the issue. The Right has a very long history of disenfranchising minority voters - back to Jim Crow days - and recent experience of how underhand tactics such as this can make all the difference - Florida 2000, where wholesale disenfranchising of black voters enabled Bush to crawl across the line in the State, and ultimately into the White House. This strategy - systematically disenfranchising voters perceived to be hostile to the Right - was the last successful strategy to deliver the Presidency to the Right. No doubt that fact is chiselled into the memory of GOP strategists. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that there is a real problem that requires solving, the Right's distasteful history on this issue offers the only clue why this issue is being pushed by the people who are pushing it. Reading is fundamental. Pass it on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

tweakabelle -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 4:02:40 AM)
Dodging the issue once again. No surprise really. I suppose that, given the complete absence of any evidence to support your insistence that there is a real problem with current voting arrangements that requires a solution, dodging the issue is the only strategy you have left.

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 4:16:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? Um, I'm arguing for an idea that I think is a damn good idea, actually. In case you haven't noticed, I don't agree with everything some "conservative" mouthpiece spouts. I don't know if you participated, but I disagreed with Dr. Larry Arnn from Hillsdale College in the Constitution Minute #11. The idea being the government can search you at any time for any reason? Not just when you may have run afoul with the breaking a law? Am I not allowed my privacy? Besides I don't recall the first couple of elections in America needed to check one's photo ID to determine if someone was a citizen or not. Back in the days when there was trust and goodwill for one's fellow citizens. Have we fallen so much, that we force people to prove their innocence when they vote? That breaks a central concept of the US Constitution. You want to play that game? We didn't have to buy health insurance, or pay income tax, either. There is nothing in the law books forcing you to buy health insurance or pay income taxes. Your exactly correct! HOWEVER... By not having a correct healthcare insurance or paying your income taxes, you might be penalized for the act(s). Which could take several forms depending on what laws were violated and the degree. And this issue would be in a court case. And you can make your argument(s) to the judge at that time. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, you don't agree with every conservative mouthpiece on subjects ranging far a wide. But we are not discussing those other subjects at the moment, are we? We are talking on the merits of voter fraud and voter photo ID. On this discussion, you agree completely with those conservative mouthpieces! For two reasons. The first is that you have not establish an argument for why you or the government should be allowed to violate my 4th amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. No, I am not. This is not unreasonable, therefore, not a violation of your right against unreasonable search and seizure. Your 'rights' do not trump my 'rights'. That is what you forget. 'Unreasonable' by definition means "to be not reasonable". You have not presented a reasonable, reason, for my 4th amendment to be violated. You have to prove, not me, that I am "A) Not who I say I am, B ) Not Live where I say I live, or C) A combination of A & B". YOU HAVE TO SUPPOR THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE. That is how our justice system works. A man is considered...INNOCENT...until proven....GUILTY...in a court of law. How did you possibly past high school being this ignorant? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether That you would accuse me of a crime without due process, lawyer, or the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Do you even realize how many parts of the US Constitution and its 27 amendments you have to mow down just to arrive at this viewpoint in reality? The second is I've established that while voter fraud has taken place; the rate at which it is taking place is very different from you and the conservative media's perceptions. You see it as rampant, out of control, and evil. I see it as a collection of cased of individual fraudulent votes numbering no more than one hundred out of the billion or so votes cast since the year 2000. The difference DS? I have evidence to back my claims up. You have....NOTHING! The right to vote is only afforded to US Citizens. How are we to protect that right unless we make sure only citizens are voting? The right to vote is afforded to what the US Constitution states. Right now, that is for only US Citizens. Could that change in the future? Always possible.... You have not shown evidence that non US Citizens are voting in numbers needed to affect the outcome of an election to even a small degree (let alone a major one). Has non US Citizens voted? I'm sure it has, and we could find some cases. Are they in numbers sufficient to warrant a change in voting laws? Very much doubt it. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether There are many threads others and myself simply do not enter into. That is most often due to not having a political connection to what is being discussed/argued. It is a well established fact, that you have a political interest. I based this argument on the number of posts to this thread, and the number of posts to previous threads on this subject (i.e. Voter Fraud and/or Voter Photo ID Laws). That you can not be honest to yourself and others...ALSO....speaks volumes.... Not really, Joether. It's not politics. I happen to agree with the need for Voter ID's and don't think it's an unreasonable request. And, you have absolutely no clue about my honesty. If you wish to surrender your 4th and 5th amendment rights for some safety, go right on ahead. When that bites you in the ass, don't come complaining to all of us! Logically speaking, what is next? Can the government also observe who and what you vote on? We have to make sure you are not trying to corrupt the vote, right? Its a pretty easy and logical 'next step'. After that, post to the public how you voted. You already removed your privacy for public record, so your 1st amendment rights are simply irrelevant. You assume the NSA doesn't already know these things. I'm not as trusting as you are. Do you see me mentioning the National Security Agency (NSA) in that quote? I have neither denied nor verified that the NSA has, is, or will do such a thing. If you want to make an accusation, best you have...EVIDENCE...to support it. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether And, for the record, your conclusions means barely more to me than Joether's. Yes, facts and evidence don't matter. Only what state run propagan.....er....conservative media tells you to think. Time and again, you have had your arguments destroyed...utterly....by facts and evidence. The only possible way you can reach your viewpoint is if your a 'fanatic to the cause'. Which is to say, no amount of evidence or facts will change your viewpoint. That you can not be reasoned with. That you are so conditioned and programmed, that you might as well be a mindless drone serving your masters in the GOP/TP. In which case, should we even allow you the freedoms of being a US Citizen, since we don't give the same to robots at the current time? Again, you're fucking clueless about me. What "state run" propaganda or "conservative media" do I get my info from? And, your "conclusions" are more accurately spelled, "delusions." Do I REALLY have to bring up...EVERY...single example from previous threads and this one, in which you brought false and debunked material on this topic? You have made claims in the past that 'x' number of votes were questionable; yet didn't bother to present the evidence I was able to find in 10 seconds of a goggle searches displaying that information as false and/or misleading. Either you knew about the follow up evidence and didn't say anything at each instance (i.e. dishonesty), or you didn't know how to check for updated information (i.e. an clueless). Your either dishonest or clueless; which is it? What you conclude to be false and debunked are the delusions, Joether. They are viewed through your partisan lens. In yoru world, if I don't agree with you or the Democrats, I'm either dishonest or clueless. I assure you, I am neither. And yet you show...NO EVIDENCE...to say those studies are false and debunked. Not a single one! Partisan lens? Dude...you have..ZERO GROUNDS...to attack on that issue. Your saying voter fraud is rampant. In post after posts, thread after thread. Where is the....EVIDENCE? Where is the.....FACTS? Its not coming from verifiable, credible sources, but conservative media ones that have a HUGE biasness worked into the language of their material. And I'm the one calling you out on your 'Limited Government' bullshit here. Not a single line of defense here either. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether I've presented the evidence time and again. Laid down facts in my arguments. And you have yet to refute one claim. So, you have not a leg to stand on in this discussion. Yet another delusion. That is all you got....a delusion and fantasy. If what I say is so....bullshit....by all means....PRESENT THE EVIDENCE.... And you cant do it. Because your evidence has been...RESEARCHED...and the truth of each case is known. You can not arrive at any level of intellectual honesty and say voter fraud is rampant. I have the evidence and facts, you have neither!

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 4:25:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Dodging the issue once again. No surprise really. I suppose that, given the complete absence of any evidence to support your insistence that there is a real problem with current voting arrangements that requires a solution, dodging the issue is the only strategy you have left. The issue is this.....conservatives/libertarians keep nominating individuals that are either A ) Insane, B ) Clueless, C ) Or a combination of A & B. And the American people, fortunately, are pretty moderate if not liberal leaning. So conservatives and libertarians have been looking into any and all ways to steer control of government back into their favor. There is only so much gerrymandering will do, right? An its amusing to listen to some person that claims they are in favor of 'Limited Government', but in favor of adding additional layers to it. And that those layers have been shown to add no real improvements to the current system at the cost to place and defend those improvements in court battles. Its like gay marriage bans. State after state they are getting removed. How much did it cost to place the ban into effect? And to defend it in court cases? Was it 'money well spent'? According to 'fiscal conservatives' and 'limited government' types, the answer is 'yes'. Which should blow anybody's mind who is intelligent, educated, and sane! DS doesn't have the facts nor the evidence on his side. And we all know it. The moment he brings the information forward, I'm going to research it. You and I both know that. So does he. So he has to make damn well sure, his source(s) are airtight, solid, verifiable, and credible. Which means they cant come from a conservative media link. Unfortunately, those are the only links pushing out this garbage!

joether -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 6:16:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri IOW, no, you have no proof that I make the claim that voter fraud is taking place at the rate the GOP/TP tells me to believe. No proof? Ok DS, I'm going to go...VERY SLOW...here.....try to keep up. Which thread are you posting on? What is the CENTRAL TOPIC of the thread? Who keeps telling me that voter fraud has to be happening....cus....it has to be happening? And who keeps linking the correct information, from individuals and groups that have spent time researching these cases to determine which ones were of a criminal nature and the many that were not, for hosts of reasons? Go back into previous threads on the subject matter. You've been 'owned' in each one of them as well. Your 'evidence' and 'facts' were debunked. You can not handle the notion that what you think is happening....is not...happening in the nation. So I'll test your 'claim' with the following sentence: Do you agree with me the following (all items as true): A ) Voter Fraud does indeed take place within the United States of America, B ) The rate of such fraud is measured in individual or units of '10' no greater than 1000, C) Over a period of years since the year 2000, and D ) Based on evidence and facts, the numbers are no where near what conservative/libertarian media state it to be? Either you acknowledge that 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' are true, or you agree that your comment is...FALSE. I'm tired of playing these games, DS. You don't have evidence, you don't have facts, you have plenty of bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Another related question... how do the GOP or Tea Party tell me what to believe? See, I could tell you the answer. But what do I gain? Nothing. I'll give you a taste of it, to satisfy your question. You have on your post script 'Limited Government', right? And we have talked about this concept in the past, right? How does someone support this concept, while adding layers of law and legal restrictions, for a process that I can show is flawed and easily compromised? How much does it cost to bring the concept of 'voter photo ID' laws into existence? And to maintain such requirements? And defend them in court? I have no idea to be honest. I do know that the proper set of arguments would bring down such laws. I use, for example, the anti gay marriage laws that came into existence and are now being over turned one by one across this nation. I would think, a person in favor of 'Limited Government' would not be in favor of laws restricting the right to vote. That if the concept of voter fraud was presented; these individuals would do a reasonable level of research to determine if the claims hold bearing. And than decide what steps could be taken to mitigate the harmful effects while keeping the good parts of the law (in this case, voting process) in tact. Of course, there is another level to this. That those of 'Limited Government' would weight the decision on whether they could live with voter fraud at the low levels it is without adding new laws, and thus, increase the size of government. This might just take the forum of increasing the penalty(ies) for being convicted of voter fraud, rather than voter ID laws. You know me, I could go more in depth with this..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether The fact that you have no problem with US Citizens not being able to vote, that wish to vote, is very troubling to any real American..... Right, because I support programs helping them get acceptable ID's... Why should they be forced to get the IDs Mr. "Limited Government"? I keep bringing this concept up, because your 'definition' of the phrase, has no bearing on the idea of "limited' or 'government'. How do we have limited government, by forcing Americans to obtain IDs that I have pointed out, can be easily faked? Thus, resulting in a NEW level of IDs. How soon do you think those IDs will get hacked? Its a never ending cycle that makes anyone laugh in your face when you say "I'm for limited government'. And that you do not understand in a rational way, WHY, they are mocking you so badly. Its seriously tiring listening to the bullshit, DS..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Why should they get a photo ID? To prove they are who they are? Isn't ID theft a problem in your world? But I say who I am, and where I live. Its up to someone else to make an accusation and support it with evidence. We went over this in previous posts on this thread. I even went so fair in good faith, to give you a sort of 'role play' dialogue tree of how the process would work. To which you asked questions. And I answered those questions, with additional dialogue. You did read this, yes? Just because your paranoid and feel distrustful of your fellow Americans, is not grounds enough, for their 4th amendment rights to be violated. I've explained the processes very clearly. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: joether Source # 3 http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elections/indiana-turnout-not-affected-by-voter-id-requirement/article_a385924c-8e14-5926-9d1d-600b7190e065.html Did you bother to read the FIRST LINE? " Indiana's nearly decade-long experiment requiring voters produce photo identification to obtain a ballot likely isn't to blame for the state's lackluster voter turnout." Republicans established early on in this 'bullshit' viewpoint that Vote IDs would improve voter turnout? Or have you conveniently forgotten US History? Um, no, it's the Democrat party line that voter ID would reduce voter turnout. Perhaps you should read the sentence you quoted for comprehension... What does the word 'lackluster' mean to you? Lackluster: adjective 1. lacking force, brilliance, or vitality Means in this case, the voting was not better results than before the voting ID laws when into effect. So the Democrats were correct, that the photo ID laws would reduce voter turnout. They made a prediction, and the evidence supports that prediction. "Perhaps you should read the sentence you quoted for comprehension..." How about you should take your own fracking advice, eh? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The "reporter" of the piece also showed that the hysterical claims of the Democrats didn't happen. Who created all this bullshit, DS? That would be the Republican/Tea Party. It would be up to them to show that when voter ID Laws went into effect, they had achieved noticeable, positive effects. The minority party (in this case, the Democrats) would make a statement and prediction that the results would not be anywhere near what the other party stated. How do I know the Democrats were the minority party in this case, DS? An I'm going to use 'conservative logic' here.... You guys LOVE to bash on President Obama's Affordable Care Act. Back when Healthcare.gov was opened, it had numerous problems. It was up to the Democrats and the President to fix the problems, after they stated things would work out. Just a few months later, the system was running fine, and the Democrats and President could enjoy their hard work much more. The Republican/Tea Party's little project failed to achieve what they stated.....so its correct to 'boo' them (to use another conservative 'concept'). You cant have it both ways, DS. quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If you read the article, PA didn't have voter ID laws in effect. Interestingly enough, since the law wasn't in effect, it's significance would be pretty low, no? I want you to point out to me on GOOGLE EARTH, where the following location is found in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: Nottingham...NEW HAMPSHIRE..... And you know why you cant find Nottingham, NH in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DS? BECAUSE THE FRACKING TOWN AND STATE ARE NOT IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLANIA!!!!!!!!!!! The article was about NEW HANMPSHIRE. TRY.....READING....THE....FRACKING....ARTICLE..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I have cited sources showing that the effects screeched about by Democrats didn't come to pass after Voter ID laws went into effect. But, I don't expect you to see that. Let us be clear on what you have cited.....BULLSHIT. BALONEY. CRAP. I have stated why its bullshit, baloney, and crap previously. Find two pieces of bread, put all that between those two pieces, and eat it whole. Do this why reading the previous posts..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Once again, you're twisting the use of the word "limited." But, I'm used to that. Twisted around? I once asked you directly...yes...DIRECTLY...."Please, DS, could you define for me, in complete terms and understandings of your view on the definition of Limited Government?" I asked you...SEVEN TIMES. You did not give a well informed understanding of the concept. I would think a core concept to you, would be pretty heavily, well defined. Giving me information (be it web address, or book) from authors you feel best help explain the views. What did I get out of it? About three or four very short sentences that were pretty vague and devoiced of substance. What did I do? I gave you what I thought 'Limited Government' might be defined as. Why? To see if I could get you, to establish the concept further. Why? To understand! To understand, everything fully, from your point of view. I could have chosen other people on here? Why you and not them? Because I believed you would give me a very good, in depth understanding. Put in 'simple' terms, "Limited Government' is 'Limited or less regulation'. How is there 'limited government' by adding layer after layer of regulations? That's a total contradiction! What you don't like, is I'm piling on your bullshit back at you. If you don't like it, why are you giving it to me? quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Where have I ever argued that "voter fraud takes place and is rampant?" WOW....just.....wow.... How do you rationally and sanely arrive at this view point? After all the threads? After all the posts? HOW....do you arrive at this line? If voter fraud is not taking place as you state....WHY...the layers of regulations? How about we require an intelligence test? And a 'Recent US History' exam? After that, let's say everyone can vote, but they have to do it from a hand stand, while reciting the US Constitution (and the amendments)....BACKWARDS? Notice the sarcasm here? If your so afraid of the boogey man, why not go for broke, and require everyone to only wear pink bunny slippers, red stockings, blue speedos, yellow bikini top, green opera gloves, and a copper tiara..... ...why not just go for broke.... Because your 'arguments' if I can call it that...is so 'fracked in the head' that it is beyond any normal sane conversation or dialogue.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Interestingly enough, my ex pays less, for more benefits, more protections, and fewer risks, and has for years now. There is no "economy of scale" in effect. All there is is a shell game taking more from one to give to another. That's not an economy of scale. That's just greater redistribution. You really do not understand that concept..... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri In your little scenario, you failed to continue the rules laid out where the one person was a liar that was being called out. No actually, that was included. That you didn't understand, is not my fault. You display a total lack of a clue on the US Constitution. So I'll go over this....REALLY...SLOWLY....AGAIN.... Lets say the person is a liar. The person states their name and address. Someone challenges them. Who has the burden of evidence to produce here? A ) The liar B ) The Accuser C ) The Law Enforcement Official The answer is...STILL..."B". The liar doesn't have to say anything, that's too is a little unknown concept to you: the 5th amendment. So the officer plugs in the information and finds the person is not giving the correct information. Does the liar have to say....anything? And the answer is...STILL..."no'. Because there are plenty of reasonable explanations. But lets just say for the sake of this truly silly and stupid 'argument' of yours, the law enforcement official determines the guy is full of crap and arrests him. Do you feel vindicated? Do you know how many times this has....ACTUALLY...taken place in this nation since 2000? Less then 35 times. (give or take a few). I'm not going to cite a source, since most of your 'sources' have been totally bogus and full of crap. I think I've earned one or two 'freebies'. And why doesn't it happen more often, DS? The reason is simple.... The payoff is not worth the penalty. Is there a payoff to robbing a bank full of cash against the penalty? Yes. Where is the pay off of a second person voting for 'Republican Nominee for President'? When there is a few million votes between the candidates? Its like a fart in a hurricane! The weather people are not going to notice the fart as having any effect on the hurricane! quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri That would be nice, but I'm not concerned about proving my identity. I have a driver's license when I go to vote. Any CORI check that I might get done isn't going to combat voter fraud whatsoever. You wanted alternatives, and I proved them. You don't like that I've called you on your bullshit....YET...again.... An how do you know a CORI check would not help? Are you able to divine things with perfect accuracy? Lets have those powerball jackpot numbers for this Friday...BEFORE...Friday arrives. If I win, I'll accept your answer here. If I lose, you are disproven.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri And, the next guy could be lying. But, we'll never know, will we? And that's he choice we make in a free society. Don't like it....move.... quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri So, you go off the rails about the SCOTUS being conservative, which is, apparently, the only reason voter ID laws passed. http://www.fitsnews.com/2013/06/17/scotus-rules-on-voter-id/ 7-2 And did you even...BOTHER...to read the artic..... ....Oh wait...I forgot.... WHO ...I was addressing..... This ruling has nothing to do with a Photo ID. Nor of voter fraud. Its about whether one form was to be used in establishing citizenship to vote over another.

thishereboi -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 7:11:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri This isn't political for me. I don't see any reason why a Democrat voter would have a harder time getting the necessary ID's than a Republican voter, than a Libertarian voter, than any other Party voter. I even support helping people get the necessary ID's if they don't have an ID and want one. If this wasn't political for you, why are you in the thread, arguing for the conservative dogma? Maybe he is waiting for one of the posters who claim this is a deliberate move to stop democrats from voting to actually show us why it is so hard for the left to get an id and not so hard for the right. Now you provided a few links showing that it is hard for some people to get the card but nothing in them mentioned it being harder for one party than the other. And since people need an id to do a lot of things in this world it would seem much easier to work on getting them an id than trying to twist this into another right vs left fight. Well it would be easier if the objective was to help the people and not to make a political point.

thishereboi -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 7:15:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom Joether: If I have to show an ID at the supermarket or the drugstore or Walmart to prove my credit card is valid, tell me why that's ok, but why somehow it's fine for a Walmart purchase but not fine for voting? Or is voting << Walmart purchase? Preposterous. There is no legitimate reason not to require government issued id to vote. You can't fly without it. You can't cash a check without it. You can't even purchase many goods without. You can't collect gambling or betting winnings without it either. You can't play online poker without providing an ID. You can't see a doctor without id either (in most cases). What can you do without an id? Well, you can use a port-a-potty at an outdoor festival. Is that the significant you attach to a vote? You forgot one. You have to have id to collect any kind of financial aid in Michigan. If you don't have an id card, the first thing they do is get you one so you can collect your benefits. There has been talk about putting pictures on the bridge cards (food stamps) that has really gotten people riled up. I am sure it must be some new conservative plot to keep those pesky democrats down. Those bastards.

thishereboi -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 7:22:33 AM)
Just curious, do you go into this kind of a rant every time someone asks you for id? Now I have had kids act like 3 yrs olds and throw tantrums when I asked for id so they could buy their smokes, but they are kids and about to be told no they can't have what they want, so I can kinda understand their frustration. But you are supposed to be an adult. Do you honestly think handing someone a card is the same as letting them search your person? I have to say as many times as I have been asked for id, they have always waited until I handed it to them. Not one tried to search me and take it. But maybe you have such a attitude that people handle you differently. It's the only explanation that makes sense.

DesideriScuri -> RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 (9/10/2014 2:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Dodging the issue once again. No surprise really. I suppose that, given the complete absence of any evidence to support your insistence that there is a real problem with current voting arrangements that requires a solution, dodging the issue is the only strategy you have left. Few get caught violating voting laws, in part, because they're not all that protected. I could walk up to the polls and state a name and an address (as long as both of those match up) and, at least in Ohio, I could sign the voter roll with the person's signature right next to the box I'm signing. No one is allowed to challenge me, either. Why? Because Joether and others think likely Democrat voters can't get photo ID's (even if there are programs that help them with the logistics and the finances). This logistical and financial issues are only going to be around for a few elections anyway. It won't take too long to get everybody who wants to vote and doesn't have an ID already, an ID. We can also start programs in our schools that result in the students getting appropriate ID (imagine a government class taking a field trip to the DMV for a non-driver ID for kids who don't have either a driver's license, or a State ID). How many college students that are US Citizens don't have an ID? Yes, there are issues with the elderly, as it's going to be more difficult to find birth certificates, but that's only going to get easier as time goes on (because it got more and more regular way back in the way back). We didn't have the greatest recordkeeping from the get go. It's gotten better as the country has aged. The hysteria surrounding voter ID and how it's a political ploy to reduce the numbers of minority, elderly and youth voters is nothing but rhetoric.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375