RE: Interesting Point

RE: Interesting Point (Full Version)

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

Message

FieryOpal -> RE: Interesting Point (10/22/2014 9:24:50 PM)
[Brackets mine] quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal A couple of decades ago, a relative of a family friend used somebody else's birth certificate and social security card to assume his identity. He didn't even fit the other man's physical description if anybody would have checked, There is no picture or physical description associated with a ss card or a birth certificate. No, not with an SSN card, but besides gender, older birth certificates can indicate race. The person in question must have obtained one without race being disclosed, because he was white and the person whose identity he assumed was a black acquaintance of that family's who had stored his personal effects with them. quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Perhaps [an expired driver's license is] not [considered] valid in itself as ID, but valid for the purposes of biographical evidence (in verifying one's personage, address, state residency, and in matching up other trackable records, etc.) in conjunction with the other forms of less refutable ID. You do realize that the above statement is self contradictory[8\|] Valid might not be the right word, if we are to define the word valid as meaning legally recognized on an ongoing basis. It is evidentiary within a designated verification period. After that verification period has expired, there is a re-verification process required. It may not be a stringent one, but you can hardly go around passing yourself off as being the 20-year-old person in your photo 20 or more years later. Whether one has shrunk an inch or two probably won't be noticed, nor anything but a huge weight gain or weight loss. If one's hair has turned white, that should get noted, I would imagine. Think of it as a photo-updating requirement that all of us get subjected to as we naturally age. frown

Edwynn -> RE: Interesting Point (10/22/2014 9:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I'll answer the question: he who pays the piper calls the tune. That's why anonymous secret money is a "right" but an individual voter without an ID can be turned away. Or he can vote several times without voter ID. Or he can, if he be of sufficient means, donate several times anonymously to fund the project that eliminates thousands of voters., with out showing ID.

Edwynn -> RE: Interesting Point (10/22/2014 9:47:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Tell that to a traffic cop. And this is quite the joke, isn't it? If your DL (ID) is expired, then you are not even acknowledged as a legal person, in effect. So what legal action is there to be had, then?

cloudboy -> RE: Interesting Point (10/22/2014 10:03:06 PM)
How about we require all voters produce a valid passport? That's the best form of national ID we have and it confirms citizenship. It would also wipe out the GOP base from voting -- but hey... getting a passport is not too much of an undue burden.

Edwynn -> RE: Interesting Point (10/22/2014 10:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal Valid might not be the right word, if we are to define the word valid as meaning legally recognized on an ongoing basis. Indeed it might not. The whole notion of an ID as being proof and definition of a person's existence as presented, which such notion magically disappears after four or five years "by law" would not present itself to a logically thinking person as being ... a valid concept at all. And maybe it's different in your state, but the birth date is on any proper ID I've ever been aware of, so I don't know how you come up with this concoction of people skating by on that one. quote: The reason why old ID isn't a trustworthy form of identification is because it used to be your old ID was not confiscated when replaced with new ID (which means somebody else could pass himself or herself off as you). The reason why old ID isn't a trustworthy form of identification is because it used to be your old ID was not confiscated when replaced with new ID (which means somebody else could pass himself or herself off as you). You completely missed the point, which is that it's ridiculous and logically inane that the revenue-seeking law requires that your state issued ID be "Old" after four or five years, though the clearly stated (and state validated) name and birth date never changes. Not singling you out here, but it's amazing how many people in this post accept mere desperate revenue grabbing as either socially or legally valid anything.

FieryOpal -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 12:47:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn <snip> And maybe it's different in your state, but the birth date is on any proper ID I've ever been aware of, so I don't know how you come up with this concoction of people skating by on that one. Not trying to be difficult, but I don't see your point about birthdates, what 'concoction' in which way about 'skating by on that [undefined] one.' Could you be more specific? quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn You completely missed the point, which is that it's ridiculous and logically inane that the revenue-seeking law requires that your state issued ID be "Old" after four or five years, though the clearly stated (and state validated) name and birth date never changes. Not singling you out here, but it's amazing how many people in this post accept mere desperate revenue grabbing as either socially or legally valid anything. Whatever the motivation, people's appearances often do change after 5 years. I didn't miss the point at all, as a matter of fact. I was playing devil's advocate. If I could get away with it, I'd still be using my passport for identification purposes. (Better photo than usually on my driver's license [8D] ) Hell, I still want that driver's license photo back from when I was 20. Those bank tellers used to pass it around amongst themselves to ooh and aah about how well it had come out compared to the ones they customarily saw daily. <I am not making this up.> [:)]

hot4bondage -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 6:31:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery News flash -- Thomas Paine wasn't influencing an election. He was attacking a monarchy. The difference should be obvious. Nice dodge, but Common Sense has also influenced many elections for many years. So where would you draw the line? Was Paine right to sway people anonymously or not?

thishereboi -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 6:47:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You made the claim. You knew it wasn't true when you made it. And I never made any claim about only Republicans being able to get ID. You are a very clumsy liar. You claimed requiring id was a republican plot to stop democrats from voting. Now if it is just as easy for a D to get id as a R then there is no plot and you are lying. But again, I am not surprised. I was browsing the web for news stories and stumbled across one that claimed it was going to explain why Texas' New Voter ID Law Is Racist. This intrigued me mainly because of the numerous discussions we have held here. Then I clicked on the link http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-scathing-dissent-offers-12-reasons-why-texas-new-voter-id?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark and wasn't surprised a bit to see that there was no actual reasons revolving around racism and the article was basically a lie.

thishereboi -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 6:49:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Hundreds of thousands of Texans will have a hard time getting the ID. The ID law says that Texans can get a state-issued photo ID from police, but only in certain locations. “Those who lack the approved forms of identification may obtain an “election identification certificate” from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), but more than 400,000 eligible voters face round-trip travel times of three hours or more.” Is bullshit, all you have to do is go to your local DMV office every county has one, so there is no three hour freaking drive, except in five counties in far west Texas that have a total population between them of less than 30,000 people. One of those counties is larger than the state of Massachusetts and has a population of less than 9000 people. Actually there are 81 counties in Texas without DPS offices and in 34 additional counties the DPS office is only open part time. http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2012/08/common-sense-voter-id-not-always-so-common/ The fact is that multiple federal judges have looked at the Texas law and the Texas system for issuing ID's and found that the law would have the effect of disenfranchising people. If they had started building offices instead of pissing and whining and lying, they would have had enough built by now to handle the situation. But as usual instead of doing anything positive, you merely sit back and point fingers at those evil right wingers. Good luck with that.

thishereboi -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 6:54:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy How about we require all voters produce a valid passport? That's the best form of national ID we have and it confirms citizenship. It would also wipe out the GOP base from voting -- but hey... getting a passport is not too much of an undue burden. You comparing getting a passport to getting a state id tells me you have never gotten a passport or are lying through your teeth to make a point. so which is it?

DomKen -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 7:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: Hundreds of thousands of Texans will have a hard time getting the ID. The ID law says that Texans can get a state-issued photo ID from police, but only in certain locations. “Those who lack the approved forms of identification may obtain an “election identification certificate” from the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), but more than 400,000 eligible voters face round-trip travel times of three hours or more.” Is bullshit, all you have to do is go to your local DMV office every county has one, so there is no three hour freaking drive, except in five counties in far west Texas that have a total population between them of less than 30,000 people. One of those counties is larger than the state of Massachusetts and has a population of less than 9000 people. Actually there are 81 counties in Texas without DPS offices and in 34 additional counties the DPS office is only open part time. http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/2012/08/common-sense-voter-id-not-always-so-common/ The fact is that multiple federal judges have looked at the Texas law and the Texas system for issuing ID's and found that the law would have the effect of disenfranchising people. If they had started building offices instead of pissing and whining and lying, they would have had enough built by now to handle the situation. But as usual instead of doing anything positive, you merely sit back and point fingers at those evil right wingers. Good luck with that. How would federal judges get Texas to build DPS offices? Are you so epically clueless that you think that is inside the purview of a judicial order?

DomKen -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 7:16:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You made the claim. You knew it wasn't true when you made it. And I never made any claim about only Republicans being able to get ID. You are a very clumsy liar. You claimed requiring id was a republican plot to stop democrats from voting. Now if it is just as easy for a D to get id as a R then there is no plot and you are lying. But again, I am not surprised. I was browsing the web for news stories and stumbled across one that claimed it was going to explain why Texas' New Voter ID Law Is Racist. This intrigued me mainly because of the numerous discussions we have held here. Then I clicked on the link http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-scathing-dissent-offers-12-reasons-why-texas-new-voter-id?paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark and wasn't surprised a bit to see that there was no actual reasons revolving around racism and the article was basically a lie. You seem confused or are unable to read. Both my point and Ginsberg's are sound.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 7:35:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Yeah. I suppose some poor sucker has to pay for all that soldierin' and guns and shit. [8D] Actually, the costs shown are paid to the respective States and are not Federal. So, your statement would be more accurate stated as: "some poor sucker has to pay for all that shit." [:D]

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 7:41:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity FR - 850 voters in NYC are officially 164 years old Bet theyre all Democrats, too [:D] Just because their DOB is listed as 1/1/1850 doesn't mean they aren't eligible to vote, now does it? Prior recordkeeping didn't require exact birth dates. Those that didn't have exact dates (the article mentions some women putting in "21+" for their age when registering) were assigned 1/1/1850. The person that touched off the inquiry is 73, so she's has every right to vote that you or I have. Is there any proof that anyone who was actually born on 1/1/1850 has cast a ballot, or just people who have that as a default birth date because the records haven't been updated?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 7:48:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy How about we require all voters produce a valid passport? That's the best form of national ID we have and it confirms citizenship. It would also wipe out the GOP base from voting -- but hey... getting a passport is not too much of an undue burden. Why would it wipe out the GOP base from voting?

jlf1961 -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 8:47:48 AM)
I am about to say something that is really going to piss people off, but then I am fucking sick and tired of being told "Press 1 for English" How about a national requirement that to be eligible to vote, you have to be able to speak English? As for the ID bullshit, I guess that the fact that the State did inform the citizens of the law change, that PSA's have been run, and all those voter registration drives should have included the information, but then, if the dems did not tell the people they were trying to register to vote about the change in laws, it is the fault of the Republicans right?

SlipSlidingAway -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 9:06:28 AM)
I, personally find no offense... But, if you are that upset about how you are being treated, perhaps you would do better to reside in a country where choices don't exist? There are all ready plenty of them out there. And, if you notice, you lament that pressing #1 for English as necessary. I can't imagine Native Americans thinking that's ideal, either. But hey, I'm betting it's for entirely different reason. The people that live here seem to fail to realize that the vast majority of them have immigrant ancestors who came here to escape oppression or to provide better lives for their families. The fact that you are here complaining, unless you happen to be a Native American, is a testament to the fact that doing so is often successful. Yet, you resent others for doing the same. And, speaking English? How about hiring ESL teachers in the public schools that actually know how to teach the American citizens who are born here, but whose parents are not native speakers, to do so? I know for a fact that many of those teachers are ill equipped to provide those kids, American kids, with the tools they need to meet the requirements that you would require of them.

jlf1961 -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 9:40:16 AM)
You dont get it do you? You go to a store, and you get a cashier that barely speaks English, you have to press 1 for English if you call a US government agency in a country where the majority of people speak English, you go to a government office and you get some person who again has a hard time understanding English, then you get some democrat politician suggesting that the government should fund classes for English speakers to learn fucking Spanish... Then you have people yelling about a free voter ID that is good for nothing more than voting, which is not costing the voter a dime, but costing the state money to make the damn things, screaming that it is unfair to the poor and minorities? I have had trouble getting checks cashed with a driver's license expired a week, and people can get by with an expired ID for longer? I have voted democrat in every fucking election since Reagan, but now you have liberals who scream at common sense requirements, whine over compromising to keep the Constitution intact, and then dont have the balls to stand up and fight for what they told you they wanted. We have to protect the rights of the minorities (many of which wont even try to learn the most common language on the planet) protect the rights of murderers, rapists, child molesters, and every other violent criminal in the country, while ignoring their Caucasian base by passing a fucked up health care plan that fucked a lot of people out of good coverage they had (after being assured they would not lose their coverage) done not a fucking thing to lower insurance premiums, and they tell us it is for our own good... I sure as hell aint a conservative, but I cant call myself a liberal any more, because in my opinion, neither side gives a fuck about what the fuck I need or believe in. In short, this country needs a fucking enema.

cloudboy -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 9:57:20 AM)
WELL SAID.

thompsonx -> RE: Interesting Point (10/23/2014 10:06:27 AM)
ORIGINAL: cloudboy How about we require all voters produce a valid passport? That's the best form of national ID we have and it confirms citizenship. Since a birth certficate is all you need for id to get a passport please explane how the b/c proves you are who the piece of paper says you are?

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875