Author Topic: Jeremy Claeys  (Read 14735 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #50 on: August 03, 2010, 04:40:55 PM »
Considering a large part of my job is attempting to get photo ID's into the hands of adults that don't have them its a pretty big deal.  You'd be shocked at the amount of adults that for some reason or another don't have state issued photo IDs.  I guess I'm just not an elitist prick, I don't enjoy disenfranchising people

Community Organizer?


Offline jtksu

  • definitely not a racist piece of shit
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 3673
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #51 on: August 03, 2010, 04:43:04 PM »
Considering a large part of my job is attempting to get photo ID's into the hands of adults that don't have them its a pretty big deal.  You'd be shocked at the amount of adults that for some reason or another don't have state issued photo IDs.  I guess I'm just not an elitist prick, I don't enjoy disenfranchising people

Community Organizer?



Either that, or he smuggles in illegals...  I hear both jobs pay well, though.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #52 on: August 03, 2010, 04:48:18 PM »
Quote
You need one to open an account at a bank.
Not an everyday thing, you can function without a bank account.  Even if you have an ID to open an account you can lose said ID while having an active account.
Quote
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
 
Quote
I have needed one for the application process of every job I have had.

I'm going to assume that you're college educated, there are many employers that will hire someone without a state issued photo ID
Quote
You need one to check in at the security desk at most federal buildings I've been to.

There are like 5 people in the country that go into Federal buildings as a daily routine.  Certainly you realize that most people never have a need to enter a federal building that requires an ID
Quote
You need one to drive a car.
How are you not getting this, I'm starting to wonder if you have any sense.  People that struggle with acquiring ID aren't going to have cars.  
Quote
I seriously think that I have to show my id to someone more days than I don't.
None of the scenarios you mentioned is a daily occurrence.  You don't open a bank account everyday, you don't cash a check everyday, as a matter of fact I'm guessing you have direct deposit.  If you do enter a federal building daily, I'm guessing you use a work ID to enter the building, not a state issued ID.  You show an ID when you drive if and only if you get pulled over by a 50.  Have your ID with you every moment, you use it very infrequently.


I don't do any of these things every day (other than drive), but I do them all often enough that I end up showing my id to somebody 3-4 days per week. Also, I had no idea you could cash a check without a bank account or id. The last time I tried to cash a check at a bank that I did not hold an account at, I was not only required to show an id, but leave a thumbprint as well.

My God you are sheltered, where do you live?  You ever see check cashing agencies?

Check cashing agencies require photo ID as well.  No compnay is going to just trust someone in exchange for cash.  Birth certs only cost $15.  State IDs run $16 and there are dozens of different acceptable forms of documentation that can be used to obtain one.  They have your picture on file man, it's really not hard to get a DL/ID, even after having your wallet or purse lost/stolen.  There is really no excuse to not have some form of legally required ID.  Except laziness, but those people probably won't bother to register and actually vote anyway.

http://www.kdheks.gov/vital/birth.html
http://www.ksrevenue.org/dmvproof.htm


First of all, not all check cashing agencies make you show an ID to cash a check.  I can walk into at least half a dozen places in Wichita right now, that I know will let someone cash a check without ID.   Can you fracking read?  Didn't I say a birth certificate could cost up to $50 depending on where you get it from?  Not every person living in Kansas was actually born in Kansas you stupid shazbot!.  They don't have a photo on file if you never got an ID, are you even following the conversation?  You are talking about replacement IDs, that has nothing to do with this topic, nothing.  You keep focusing on money as the only thing preventing someone from getting an ID, I am pretty sure I listed other factors.  By the way here is the list of required documents:
   1. Certified U.S. birth certificate (federal, state, county, Dept. of Justice)
   2. Birth Certificate from a U.S. territory (Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, and US Samoa)
   3. U. S. Passport or Passport Card - not expired
   4. U. S. Military ID - not expired (active duty, dependent, retired, reserve or National Guard)
   5. Certified Order of Adoption-original U.S. document
   6. Certificate of Naturalization with intact photo (Form N-550, N-570 or N-578)or Certificate of U.S. Citizenship (Form N-560, N-561 or N-645)
   7. U.S. military Common Access Card with photo, DOB, name and branch of service
   8. U.S. government-issued Consular Report of Birth Abroad

The birth certificate is the easiest of these things to acquire. 

The issue has nothing to do with laziness, and even if it did so what?  Was there a provision about perceived laziness from dumb fracking, fat, closed-minded, ass rapists like yourself in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, or 26th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America?  I feel like you are a shitty poster can I have the mods stop you from posting?

If you have a check to cash, don't you have $10 to get a State ID?

How do you propose we certify that people voting are who they say they are?  Microchip in the brain?  Why is it so important that the mentally Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or insane vote anyways?

Maybe if ACORN hadn't registered thousands of phony voters to vote democrat this wouldn't be an issue  :dunno:

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #53 on: August 03, 2010, 05:04:15 PM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 

3.  The claim that requiring ID to vote somehow alienates a huge segment of our society while infringing on their constitutional rights is batshit crazy and a feeble attempt to sound intelligent re: the Constitution.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #54 on: August 03, 2010, 05:06:39 PM »
Considering a large part of my job is attempting to get photo ID's into the hands of adults that don't have them its a pretty big deal.  You'd be shocked at the amount of adults that for some reason or another don't have state issued photo IDs.  I guess I'm just not an elitist prick, I don't enjoy disenfranchising people

Community Organizer?



Either that, or he smuggles in illegals...  I hear both jobs pay well, though.

Obviously in a big hurry to take advantage of a bunch of crazy/Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)/stupid people so he can register them democrat and prepare their absentee ballots for them.

Offline Poster formerly known as jthutch

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1765
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2010, 09:54:57 AM »
To be honest if you are not smart enough to get or know where to get a state issued ID I don't want you voting for my political leaders.  The biggest problem with everyone gets to vote is that most people are pretty much ignorant to what they are voting for. 

Offline kso_FAN

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 29506
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2010, 10:08:23 AM »
I did have to confirm my address on the register when voting yesterday.  I don't know if they do that everywhere though.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #57 on: August 04, 2010, 10:35:24 AM »
To be honest if you are not smart enough to get or know where to get a state issued ID I don't want you voting for my political leaders.  The biggest problem with everyone gets to vote is that most people are pretty much ignorant to what they are voting for. 

You're right.  Also, if you can't afford a $50 poll tax then you shouldn't be voting anyways!  We waste too much money on elections!

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #58 on: August 04, 2010, 11:32:52 AM »
To be honest if you are not smart enough to get or know where to get a state issued ID I don't want you voting for my political leaders.  The biggest problem with everyone gets to vote is that most people are pretty much ignorant to what they are voting for. 

You're right.  Also, if you can't afford a $50 poll tax then you shouldn't be voting anyways!  We waste too much money on elections!


Offline Ghost of Stan Parrish

  • I found my password
  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1814
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #59 on: August 04, 2010, 11:41:05 AM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 


I know, some funny stuff, right?   :lol:

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   :confused:
"I'm thankful our MHK forefathers had the foresight to lynch white dudes so that we might be able to throw up the mob with a clear conscience."

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #60 on: August 04, 2010, 11:51:28 AM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 


I know, some funny stuff, right?   :lol:

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   :confused:

Woo hoo!  Free stuff!  Everyone is always in favor of cuts as long as it doesn't affect them.  Cool beans!

Offline skycat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #61 on: August 04, 2010, 09:03:42 PM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 


I know, some funny stuff, right?   :lol:

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   :confused:

Woo hoo!  Free stuff!  Everyone is always in favor of cuts as long as it doesn't affect them.  Cool beans!

Woo hoo! eff the most vulnerable members of society and let them die! You'd just step over an old lady who fell on the sidewalk, wouldn't you?

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2010, 10:02:52 PM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 


I know, some funny stuff, right?   :lol:

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   :confused:

Woo hoo!  Free stuff!  Everyone is always in favor of cuts as long as it doesn't affect them.  Cool beans!

Woo hoo! shazbot! the most vulnerable members of society and let them die! You'd just step over an old lady who fell on the sidewalk, wouldn't you?

You're f*cking pathetic.  Your political party has done nothing to help anyone that could be considered vulnerable.  Putting someone in a sh*tty housing project and giving them just enough so its not worth their time to go to work has done nothing but rob entire generations of people of their own potential. 

Offline skycat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #63 on: August 04, 2010, 10:38:15 PM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 


I know, some funny stuff, right?   :lol:

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   :confused:

Woo hoo!  Free stuff!  Everyone is always in favor of cuts as long as it doesn't affect them.  Cool beans!

Woo hoo! shazbot! the most vulnerable members of society and let them die! You'd just step over an old lady who fell on the sidewalk, wouldn't you?

You're f*cking pathetic.  Your political party has done nothing to help anyone that could be considered vulnerable.  Putting someone in a sh*tty housing project and giving them just enough so its not worth their time to go to work has done nothing but rob entire generations of people of their own potential. 

From a Bill Clinton editorial about how his administration moved people from welfare to work:

Quote from: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/22/opinion/22clinton.html
The results: child poverty dropped to 16.2 percent in 2000, the lowest rate since 1979, and in 2000, the percentage of Americans on welfare reached its lowest level in four decades. Overall, 100 times as many people moved out of poverty and into the middle class during our eight years as in the previous 12. Of course the booming economy helped, but the empowerment policies made a big difference.

Clinton's policies were supported by the majority of the party, BTW.

Although welfare still isn't perfect and can be improved further, there are millions who desperately need it, especially with the recession having thrown so many out of work. Apparently you'd like to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and tell everyone they're on their own.

Not to mention the 45 million Americans without health care that you and your ilk would just as soon die as give a helping hand.

Sugar Dick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #64 on: August 04, 2010, 10:48:10 PM »
Apparently you'd like to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and tell everyone they're on their own.

Not to mention the 45 million Americans without health care that you and your ilk would just as soon die as give a helping hand.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said

:fuckinglunatic:

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2010, 11:00:59 PM »
After reading this thread all the way through, a couple of observations:

1.  Some hilarious posts, I  :lol:'d a couple of times.

2.  I find it odd, that some of the liberals on this board think ALL homeless, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), insane and old poor people vote democrat.  Doesn't seem like a credible list of people to share political views with. 


I know, some funny stuff, right?   :lol:

And it's so weird that people assume the most vulnerable people in society would vote for the party that created and supports a social safety net, as opposed to the party that wants to get rid of it in order to cut business taxes.  I can't get my head around that one either.   :confused:

Woo hoo!  Free stuff!  Everyone is always in favor of cuts as long as it doesn't affect them.  Cool beans!

Woo hoo! eff the most vulnerable members of society and let them die! You'd just step over an old lady who fell on the sidewalk, wouldn't you?

I help her up.  You call the cops and tell them there's a lady that fell over and you consider that helping the poor gal.

The42Yardstick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #66 on: August 04, 2010, 11:41:36 PM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

Offline skycat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2010, 12:32:31 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

The42Yardstick

  • Guest
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #68 on: August 05, 2010, 12:45:28 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #69 on: August 05, 2010, 09:43:29 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #70 on: August 05, 2010, 09:44:21 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."


Why did Bush sunset the tax if they were supposed to be permanent?

Offline john "teach me how to" dougie

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 7626
  • 1cat
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #71 on: August 05, 2010, 09:53:02 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!



Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."


Why did Bush sunset the tax if they were supposed to be permanent?

To satisfy the Dems in Congress.

Offline Kat Kid

  • Global Moderator
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 20444
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #72 on: August 05, 2010, 09:58:19 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!



Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."


Why did Bush sunset the tax if they were supposed to be permanent?

To satisfy the Dems in Congress.

No.  They did it because it would have triggered PAYGO rules because of the amount of money it added to the deficit.  The same reason they funded two wars on supplementals.

Offline Jeffy

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1590
  • Hello Wilbur.
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #73 on: August 05, 2010, 10:03:27 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!



Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."


Why did Bush sunset the tax if they were supposed to be permanent?

To satisfy the Dems in Congress.

No.  They did it because it would have triggered PAYGO rules because of the amount of money it added to the deficit.  The same reason they funded two wars on supplementals.

Why Are the Bush Tax Cuts Expiring?

Why are the Bush tax cuts, which were passed primarily in 2001 and 2003, expiring at the end of this tax year? In other words, why weren't they made permanent?

During the legislative fight over tax cuts in 2001, Senate Republicans could not predict with certainty that they would reach the 60-vote threshold of support that would have enabled them to make the tax cuts permanent. As a result, when Congress passed the first of many tax cuts during the last decade in May 2001, it passed it as a reconciliation bill which needs only 51 votes. That was the so-called Bush tax cut, formally known as the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA, pronounced egg-tray).

Reconciliation was devised in 1974 as a way to for the Senate to deal more effectively with budget bills, but it soon became a technique to limit amendments and debate. In 1985, the Senate added the so-called Byrd rule to reconciliation. Named after Senator Robert Byrd, the rule forbids a bill passed under reconciliation from, among other things, altering federal revenue for more than 10 years. Any senator may object that a provision violates that stricture, and if the presiding officer agrees, a vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling.

In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. The budget was in surplus at the time, but it was still controversial. In any case, President Clinton vetoed the bill. A year later the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, which President Clinton also vetoed.

Overall, 62 senators supported H.R. 1836 as amended by the Senate, thereby sending it to conference. In the end, 58 senators voted in favor of the conference report.  Nevertheless, because the bill was passed under reconciliation, revenues further than 10 years in the future could not be changed. And so, on December 31, 2010, all of EGTRRA will expire and revert to 2001 law.

The 2003 tax cuts mostly accelerated the original tax cuts, but also put in place new tax cuts for dividends and capital gains. The 2003 tax cut, known as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA) was also passed under reconciliation.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/26312.html

Offline skycat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1143
    • View Profile
Re: Jeremy Claeys
« Reply #74 on: August 05, 2010, 10:48:33 AM »
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho

It was pretty balanced when I first started looking at it out of boredom maybe a month ago. Which way did it lean before?

more right than a nazi convention. I WANT BALANCE HERE, PEOPLE! WORLD FORUM!

Lefties don't stick around very long. You can only use the race card so many times.

"Hey guys, the largest tax increase in history is taking effect in January 2011"
Lefty response: "RACIST!, I'm outta here, loser retards."