RE: 1, 1, 3, 5, 1 - 9/10/2014 3:11:23 PM
|
|
|
DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
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.
A) True
B) Unknown
C) we can define the period of years any way we want, so, if you wnat to go with the last 14 years, so be it.
D) What rate does the conservative media state it to be?
Where have I ever stated that voter fraud is rampant?
quote:
I'm tired of playing these games, DS. You don't have evidence, you don't have facts, you have plenty of bullshit.
As one that slings bullshit with the best of them, you certainly have no credibility to make that claim.
quote:
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.....
And yet, you can only go in depth according to one definition of the word "limited," which, as it has been pointed out to you many times, is not the usage I'm using.
quote:
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.....
Then stop arguing. You can't even discuss "limited government" head on. You have to take an oblique tack at it.
quote:
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.
Except, all of it could be avoided by requiring an ID to demonstrate that a person is, indeed, a Citizen.
quote:
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?
Um, no.
"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."
That's the sentence you quoted. You just said that the Democrats predicted that Voter ID laws would reduce voter turnout. Yet, the sentence you quoted states that it likely IS NOT to blame. So, the predicted result may have happened, but not due to the condition used to make the prediction.
quote:
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?
I apologize for the use of the word, "minority." I made the assumption that the law passed by the majority would have been from a Republican majority. I should have used the word "opposition" (as in opposed to voter ID laws).
quote:
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.
I don't see how this applies at all. As far as it being a Republican concept, the ACA was not a Republican concept, as it is written. Parts of it were part of the GOP's legislation running opposed to Clinton's plan. But, there were also parts of it that were left out, which are probably just as important as the parts that were left in. If I take a Ford apart and keep parts of it, and add in parts from a Chevy, a GM, a Toyota, etc., can I still call that a Ford? Do you think Ford would agree that was the vehicle they built?
Me either.
quote:
quote:
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.....
OMG!!! You have got to be kidding me!!! LMMFAO!!!!
The section you quoted: "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."
YOU quoted the part about PA. Now, you're losing it over your comprehension mistake?!? LMMFAO!!!!
quote:
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.....
This line of horseshit doesn't actually address the statement quoted. Not surprised.
quote:
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?
Limited as in "not unlimited." That is, the authorities of the US Government are limited (by the US Constitution). A "limited" government can pass laws, regulations, etc. in order to exercise it's limited authorities. But, again, you don't understand that "limited" has more than one definition.
Or you do, and you're just being a jackass.
quote:
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....
So, no proof that I've actually stated it's rampant. Got it.
quote:
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.....
You really do not have a clue about me, Joether. I don't agree with much of what you think, so I can't understand anything. Anything outside your tiny little mind is incomprehensible to you.
quote:
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!
How do we know it's not happening more than 3 dozen times? Oh, yeah. We don't. Even so, is 3 dozen times acceptable?
quote:
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....
Hey, what would a CORI check do for me that my Driver's License doesn't? So, that tells me, it wouldn't help. I carry (usually, I have forgotten my wallet on occasion) an accepted form of ID that proves my identity (and US Citizenship).
quote:
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....
So, it's okay for him to lie?
quote:
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.
I was in a rush this morning. That citation does not support my assertion.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
|
|
|
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread