Proof-of-Citizenship Ruling Victory for Honest Vote

[fskimospy]

I am not attacking you, I am just using your post to convey a point.

If someone can not get to the DMV or afford the $20 for an ID, is it safe to assume that person is paying very little in taxes?

Who are the disenfranchised voters everyone keeps talking about? People who live off the system? People who draw welfare, food stamps and live in public housing?

If someone wants to vote bad enough, pick up cans on the side of the road, wash cars, cut grass, do day labor,,,, save up $20 and get someone to bring you to the DMV.

Elderly and disabled excluded, those who contribute so little are the ones who demand so much.

If someone wishes to be a functioning member of society, then do what is expected of you.

Ooh, nice poll tax you got there.

 

[Victorian Gray]

My comment was related to voter fraud (which is what voter ID is intended to prevent) and I thought it was interesting how some Democrats reacted to her release from prison. I feel it's tangentially relevant to the topic as appears that some Democrats are much more tolerant of voter fraud than Republicans in general.

But you left out the reaction of the Democrats who are actual Democratic Party representatives:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...o/6712981/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

The Headline:

"Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter"

"Even Democrat leaders questioned the idea of applauding Richardson."

"I am very glad the county prosecutor and judge reconsidered and got her out of jail, but she is not a hero," Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman Tim Burke, who was at the rally, told the Enquirer. "What she did was criminal conduct and was particularly problematic because of her role as a poll worker."


and


"Hamilton County Democratic Party Executive Director Caleb Faux, who was also at the rally, saw it as an attempt to portray Richardson as a martyr because of the lengthy sentence."


"There is some validity that the sentence was too harsh," Faux told the Enquirer. "But I don't see how you can hold her up as an example of somebody to be proud of. What she did was reprehensible."

 

[Texashiker]

Ooh, nice poll tax you got there.

Poll tax as in how?

Having an ID is required to function in every part of our society. Voting should be no different.

If I have to show an ID to buy a gun, then everyone else has to show an ID to vote.

 

[CitizenKain]

I am not attacking you, I am just using your post to convey a point.

If someone can not get to the DMV or afford the $20 for an ID, is it safe to assume that person is paying very little in taxes?

Who are the disenfranchised voters everyone keeps talking about? People who live off the system? People who draw welfare, food stamps and live in public housing?

If someone wants to vote bad enough, pick up cans on the side of the road, wash cars, cut grass, do day labor,,,, save up $20 and get someone to bring you to the DMV.

Elderly and disabled excluded, those who contribute so little are the ones who demand so much.

If someone wishes to be a functioning member of society, then do what is expected of you.

We get it, you don't want the poor to vote.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Poll tax as in how?

Having an ID is required to function in every part of our society. Voting should be no different.

If I have to show an ID to buy a gun, then everyone else has to show an ID to vote.

Right. Everyone should have to do what you think. Live how you command. As you are the alpha and the omega.

 

[fskimospy]

Poll tax as in how?

Having an ID is required to function in every part of our society. Voting should be no different.

If I have to show an ID to buy a gun, then everyone else has to show an ID to vote.

Why should the requirements to buy a gun be the same as the requirements to vote? Different rights are regulated differently for reasons that should be obvious.

You have to show an ID to buy a gun. Should you have to show an ID to speak freely? To participate in religion? etc, etc?

 

[alzan]

Why should the requirements to buy a gun be the same as the requirements to vote? Different rights are regulated differently for reasons that should be obvious.

You have to show an ID to buy a gun. Should you have to show an ID to speak freely? To participate in religion? etc, etc?

Because TH's world (and worldview) is black and white. For TH the simpler the better.

 

[Jhhnn]

Poll tax as in how?

Having an ID is required to function in every part of our society. Voting should be no different.

False, obviously. If true, everybody would already have the kind of ID that Repubs demand people have in order to vote.

If I have to show an ID to buy a gun, then everyone else has to show an ID to vote.

Lame assertion of false equivalency in support of a false premise. You believe voter fraud is a real problem, even w/o supporting evidence. That's astroturfed indoctrination, identifying you as an emotionally insecure & driven chump, the usual victim of the right wing noise machine.

That, or a shill, but you're not sufficiently articulate to carry it off well.

 

[shortylickens]

False, obviously. If true, everybody would already have the kind of ID that Repubs demand people have in order to vote.



Lame assertion of false equivalency in support of a false premise. You believe voter fraud is a real problem, even w/o supporting evidence. That's astroturfed indoctrination, identifying you as an emotionally insecure & driven chump, the usual victim of the right wing noise machine.

That, or a shill, but you're not sufficiently articulate to carry it off well.

you use an awful lot of big words for someone losing an argument.

Or is that WHY you use the big words?

 

[Paratus]

You know what the real scourge of voting is? Voter intimidation by armed people. This is a really huge problem that needs to be addressed. We can't trust armed people coming to vote.

So to fix this situation, I propose we require all gun owners to turn on their firearms to the police on voting day. They can get them back the following day.

We should implement this immediately in Texas and other southern battleground state, not because I want the Dems to win, (I do), or because it will let the Dems win, ( they will), but to stop voter intimidation.


It's a huge problem, (I made up).

 

[ivwshane]

You know what the real scourge of voting is? Voter intimidation by armed people. This is a really huge problem that needs to be addressed. We can't trust armed people coming to vote.

So to fix this situation, I propose we require all gun owners to turn on their firearms to the police on voting day. They can get them back the following day.

We should implement this immediately in Texas and other southern battleground state, not because I want the Dems to win, (I do), or because it will let the Dems win, ( they will), but to stop voter intimidation.


It's a huge problem, (I made up).

Lol. It's just the price one has to pay to enjoy the benefits of democracy. I can't imagine anyone having a problem with this. It's to ensure the integrity of voting!




/s

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Hmm, If I offered a solution in search of a problem...guess what I would find?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Biased_search_for_information

 

[ivwshane]

you use an awful lot of big words for someone losing an argument.

Or is that WHY you use the big words?

If you consider the words he used as being "big", I'd suggest you do some more reading, preferably something from a book with no pictures and not from a right wing website. I know, I know, you won't have anything to read then!

 

[boomerang]

Judicial Watch Warns Iowa, Colorado, DC of Potential Election Integrity Lawsuits

These two states along with D.C. are not in compliance with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) requiring them to maintain accurate lists of eligible voters. They have more voters on the rolls than there are adults over 18. Nine other states that are listed in the article have also been contacted.

Just think of this like vaccinations. You get them to prevent larger problems at a later date. Purging names of people no longer eligible to vote also prevents larger problems. It's also the law.

The organization also sent inquiries on March 6 to officials in California, New Mexico, Kentucky, West Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois notifying them of potential “apparent problems” and asking these states to provide records of steps taken to assure the accuracy of voter lists.

In Iowa:
[A] comparison of 2012 Census data and 2012 EAC data shows there were more people registered to vote than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following 24 counties: Fremont, Johnson, Madison, Adams, Scott, Pocahontas, Kossuth, Poweshiek, Lyon, Cass, Dickinson, Clay, Chickasaw, Shelby, Boone, Worth, Hancock, Ida, Dallas, Audubon, Sac and Greene. A comparison with 2010 Census population estimates and 2010 EAC data shows that this trend has only worsened.

• In Colorado:

[A] comparison of 2012 Census data and 2012 EAC data shows there were more people registered to vote than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following 22 counties: Mineral, Ouray, Hinsdale, San Juan, Jackson, Gilpin, Summit, San Miguel, Gunnison, Dolores, Teller, Grand, Clear Creek, Elbert, Cheyenne, Archuleta, Pitkin, Boulder, Douglas, Routt, and Baca. A comparison with 2010 Census population estimates and 2010 EAC data shows that this trend has only worsened.

• In the District of Columbia:

[A] review of Census data and EAC data shows there were more people registered to vote in DC than there were adults over the age of 18 living there as of 2010, and as of 2012, which is the most recent data available.

 

[Texashiker]

You believe voter fraud is a real problem, even w/o supporting evidence. That's astroturfed indoctrination, identifying you as an emotionally insecure & driven chump, the usual victim of the right wing noise machine.

That, or a shill, but you're not sufficiently articulate to carry it off well.

You sir are making false and untrue statements. I have never said voter fraud was a problem, nor will I make such a statement.

I feel having a form of government issued ID is part of personal responsibility.

Having a government issued ID is a requirement to be a functioning part of this society.

Lame assertion of false equivalency in support of a false premise.

Negative.

If I have to show a government issued ID to exercise my right to buy a gun, then others have to show an ID to vote.

Why should the requirements to buy a gun be the same as the requirements to vote? Different rights are regulated differently for reasons that should be obvious.

So you would place an undue burden on one group, but oppose that same burden on other groups?

Rights are rights.

If you want to exercise your right to vote, get a form of government ID.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

But you left out the reaction of the Democrats who are actual Democratic Party representatives:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...o/6712981/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

The Headline:

"Both parties jeer embrace of fraudulent voter"

"Even Democrat leaders questioned the idea of applauding Richardson."

"I am very glad the county prosecutor and judge reconsidered and got her out of jail, but she is not a hero," Hamilton County Democratic Party Chairman Tim Burke, who was at the rally, told the Enquirer. "What she did was criminal conduct and was particularly problematic because of her role as a poll worker."


and


"Hamilton County Democratic Party Executive Director Caleb Faux, who was also at the rally, saw it as an attempt to portray Richardson as a martyr because of the lengthy sentence."


"There is some validity that the sentence was too harsh," Faux told the Enquirer. "But I don't see how you can hold her up as an example of somebody to be proud of. What she did was reprehensible."

The Democrats who organized the rally, established the agenda, and invited guest speakers were actual Democratic Party representatives as well. I understand that quite a few rank and file applauded when she was introduced. I'm glad to hear that some other members of Democratic leadership were not as pleased and stated as much; however, my point stands.

 

[fskimospy]

So you would place an undue burden on one group, but oppose that same burden on other groups?

Rights are rights.

If you want to exercise your right to vote, get a form of government ID.

Rights are rights. No more speaking until you get a permit.

 

[Texashiker]

Rights are rights. No more speaking until you get a permit.

I do not need a permit to exercise my rights.

What are some of the things you consider accepted social norms?

<you do not have to answer any of these questions>

<rhetorical question>

Not drinking and driving?
Not walking down the street naked?
Not having sex with your toaster?
Not having sex with your sister?
Having a job?
Paying taxes?
Being responsible?

</rhetorical question>

Having a government issued ID is part of accepted social norms. It is called being responsible.

 

[Greenman]

Rights are rights. No more speaking until you get a permit.

Falls flat even as hyperbole. Your right to free speech is restricted, you simply can't say anything you wish anytime you wish.
Requiring ID doesn't limit your right to vote, on the contrary, it assures that your most fundamental right is protected.

There simply isn't a logical argument to be made against requiring someone to prove who they are when they go to vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Falls flat even as hyperbole. Your right to free speech is restricted, you simply can't say anything you wish anytime you wish.
Requiring ID doesn't limit your right to vote, on the contrary, it assures that your most fundamental right is protected.

There simply isn't a logical argument to be made against requiring someone to prove who they are when they go to vote.

There's no evidence that anything you said here is true. The logical argument against voter id is that there's no evidence that the type of fraud it is attempting to prevent exists. Asking people to do extra things to solve a nonexistent problem is irrational.

 

[fskimospy]

I do not need a permit to exercise my rights.

What are some of the things you consider accepted social norms?

<you do not have to answer any of these questions>

<rhetorical question>

Not drinking and driving?
Not walking down the street naked?
Not having sex with your toaster?
Not having sex with your sister?
Having a job?
Paying taxes?
Being responsible?

</rhetorical question>

Having a government issued ID is part of accepted social norms. It is called being responsible.

Then I don't need an ID to exercise my rights.

 

[Texashiker]

Then I don't need an ID to exercise my rights.

Then I do not need an ID to buy a gun.

But I am required to have a form of ID.

Oh the oppression. I am being oppressed.

 

[fskimospy]

Then I do not need an ID to buy a gun.

But I am required to have a form of ID.

Oh the oppression. I am being oppressed.

What are you even trying to argue anymore? You are the one that said the same standard needs to apply to all rights, not me. My argument is the exact opposite.

I'm just saying these things to show you how dumb your argument is.

 

[Texashiker]

What are you even trying to argue anymore?

To function in this society citizens are expected to conduct themselves within expected norms.

One of those expected norms is to have a government issued ID.

If you are not a responsible citizen, and do not conduct yourself as such, expect to have certain rights and privileges taken away.

 

[fskimospy]

To function in this society citizens are expected to conduct themselves within expected norms.

One of those expected norms is to have a government issued ID.

If you are not a responsible citizen, and do not conduct yourself as such, expect to have certain rights and privileges taken away.

In one post you say you don't need any permits to exercise your rights, in the next post you say that if you don't have a government ID, expect to have your rights taken away.

You can't have it both ways.