goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: MakeItRain on August 02, 2010, 11:43:46 PM
-
Can one of you shitheads who are "patriots" explain something to me? Why do conservatives wrap themselves up in the flag and excuse everything from racism to letting poor people die by using the constitution and the bible as convenient excuses, but dumb asses like most of you and this jackass Claeys will crap on the constitution to greatly limit the voting pool by only allowing us fortunate enough to have a state issued photo ID to do so? Also can someone please tell me how photo IDs can eliminate voter fraud?
Why?
How?
tia
-
This seems like something pretty minor to get worked up about.
-
Kinda pissed, thought this would be about multiple Jeromey Clarys.
-
This seems like something pretty minor to get worked up about.
He decided to make it the cornerstone of his campaign, I didn't.
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 :dunno:
-
I have honestly never met a U.S. citizen over the age of 16 that does not have a photo id, though I probably would be surprised by the number of people who don't. Seriously, how do you function in day to day life with no id?
I will agree that making voter fraud your primary issue is pretty rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), though.
-
I have honestly never met a U.S. citizen over the age of 16 that does not have a photo id, though I probably would be surprised by the number of people who don't. Seriously, how do you function in day to day life with no id?
I will agree that making voter fraud your primary issue is pretty rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), though.
What do you use a photo id for in day-to-day life? I can't remember the last time I used an ID for anything other than buying alcohol or getting official documents for someone else.
-
You need one to open an account at a bank. If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck. I have needed one for the application process of every job I have had. You need one to check in at the security desk at most federal buildings I've been to. You need one to drive a car. I seriously think that I have to show my id to someone more days than I don't.
-
fortunate enough to have a state issued photo ID
I think anyone can get a state issued photo ID. You just have to, like, get it.
-
fortunate enough to have a state issued photo ID
I think anyone can get a state issued photo ID. You just have to, like, get it.
Exactly. It doesn't have to be a driver's license. I'm not sure if there's a fee involved, though.
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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.
-
Seriously though, not having an id sounds like it would be a huge pain in the ass. Do these people just not realize that they can go to the dmv and get one, or are they just too lazy to? I could understand if they were just too poor to, but like I said I don't even know if there is a fee.
Do you know anyone without an id that is actually a registered voter? It seems to me that voting would be a bigger pain in the ass than getting an id.
-
fortunate enough to have a state issued photo ID
I think anyone can get a state issued photo ID. You just have to, like, get it.
Exactly. It doesn't have to be a driver's license. I'm not sure if there's a fee involved, though.
How the hell are you going to argue this with me if you don't even know the basics of getting a state issued ID. Yes there is a fee involved. Most who don't have a state ID fall into 3 categories.
1. Don't know how to get one and don't have someone who knows they don't have one or knows that the person doesn't know how to get one. Most people like you two just assume that everyone knows how to get an ID, get out more, many people have serious issues, many people aren't bright.
2. Can't afford an ID. Can't afford to get to a place that issues IDs
3. Don't have proper documentation, like a birth certificate. They just don't hand out state IDs to anyone who asks for one. If you don't have a birth certificate getting one can be very expensive and very hard to acquire. You need a birth certificate to get a state ID, getting an original birth certificate in many cases is tougher and more expensive than getting a photo ID.
Look this convo is nice but it isn't getting me the answers I'm looking for. It is obvious that the two of you are naive about getting a state issued ID. I'll ask again: Why are people who supposedly love America and the Constitution so much so willing to crap on the premise of the founding of the country by disenfranchising a large sector of the population?
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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.
-
Seriously though, not having an id sounds like it would be a huge pain in the ass. Do these people just not realize that they can go to the dmv and get one, or are they just too lazy to? I could understand if they were just too poor to, but like I said I don't even know if there is a fee.
Do you know anyone without an id that is actually a registered voter? It seems to me that voting would be a bigger pain in the ass than getting an id.
Assuming that cost was the only issue, I think I have made it clear that it isn't, a KS ID (not a drivers license, which is obviously more expensive) is $20. A birth certificate, depending on what you get and where you get it from could cost as much as $50. You can register to vote and vote for free. And obviously yes I do know registered voters, with jobs without IDs. Did you forget the point of the topic?
Old people, poor people, tarded people, stupid people and more all have a hard time getting an ID. If Claeys thinks a certain sector of Americans should be allowed to vote he should just come out and say so.
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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?
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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?
I've seen them but never used them. Don't those places charge you money to cash your check? I always just assumed they would require an id. :dunno:
I'm not really saying you're wrong, and I do think that these people should be allowed to vote. I just have serious doubts that many, if any, of these people without id's actually exercise their right to vote.
-
I don't give a damn if they require I'd to vote or not. I just don't like people trying to use laziness as an excuse for anything and I see not carrying I'd as a pretty sure sign of laziness.
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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 rough ridin' 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 eff. 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 rough ridin', 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?
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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 rough ridin' 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 eff. 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 rough ridin', 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?
So, I'll just go ahead and assume that you are one of the lazy deadbeats that can't bother or afford to go pick up a state ID, but can afford exorbitant check cashing fees at locations spread-out throughout the city. I'm glad that you won't be able to vote anymore, though I doubt you ever bothered to put the bongs and Bob Marley CDs aside long enough to vote before anyway.
-
It sounds like some form of mental illness or substance abuse is a major factor for not being able to get a state issued ID. Allowing these people to vote doesn't seem like it would be a priority over keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting. Not to mention one person voting 20 times.
-
It sounds like some form of mental illness or substance abuse is a major factor for not being able to get a state issued ID. Allowing these people to vote doesn't seem like it would be a priority over keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting. Not to mention one person voting 20 times.
So humoring old wives tales is the price of denigrating the Constitution that "patriots' care for so deeply, good to know? So this is more important than potentially not allowing a tax paying US citizen the right to vote? So why stop there? I hear people vote based on what they hear on advertisements, so lets give a test based on candidates issues before you get a ballot, if you fail no vote. I hear people like jtksu get to vote, so lets give an IQ test before putting a name on the voter registry, you fail, you don't vote. I hear some people vote based on who someone told them to vote for so lets give a lie detector as well, you fail you don't vote. I hear some people vote just so they can get a free cookie, lets take a finger prick and get their blood sugar levels, you need sugar, you will take your ass home without voting.
Why did this become a big issue after the '08 election? Kinda weird. It wasn't an issue in '00, '04, and '06 and anytime before when there were many places with voting irregularities. What was so different about the '08 election that made this a conservative talking point? Minorities finally turned out to the polls to match their turnout number to their population of the country and angry white people want to blame the election results on millions of illegal aliens voting and hundreds of thousands of dead people and alive cheating libs voting 6 dozen times.
I would respect the conservative that could just admit that this policy focus is insanely hypocritical. The country was founded on voting rights and some want to rescind the rights of fellow Americans. Ronnie is rolling over in his grave
-
I thought you weren't coming back.
Darn.
Voting is the most important right given to citizens by the Constitution. It is not asking too much for an individual to prove they are a citizen to exercise that right.
-
I thought you weren't coming back.
Darn.
Voting is the most important right given to citizens by the Constitution. It is not asking too much for an individual to prove they are a citizen to exercise that right.
A drivers license doesn't prove your citizenship in all but a few states. Heck, even a fraudulent passport can be easily obtained with a birth certificate printed off on your home printer and the social security number of a dead person.
-
'clams obtained a photo ID for his cat.
-
'clams obtained a photo ID for his cat.
So is 'clams' cat a Republican or Democrat?
-
I agree with you MIR.
Question: what do you have to show to register to vote? I did it so long ago I don't remember.
-
Jeffy, MIR says he knows this will keep a number of American citizens from voting. That is asking too much. Very simple.
-
Jeffy, MIR says he knows this will keep a number of American citizens from voting.
No, I think what MIR is saying is that this proposal is specifically designed to keep a number of [old/poor, Democratic-voting] Americans from voting, and that this guy should be more upfront about that.
I agree this is obviously designed to help Republicans, and the whole illegal voting bogeyman is simply a cynical tactic the GOP is using to get folks behind it. On the other hand, asking politicians to be honest about their ulterior motives is asking too much.
-
Question: what do you have to show to register to vote? I did it so long ago I don't remember.
OK, I looked this up. You have to register in advance so the state has time to verify you are a citizen. You can register with a photo ID or a SSN. Then the state checks and verifies you are alive/a citizen/not a felon.
-
I think its clear enough that the politician doesn't have to defend it. He is using fear of brown-skinned people to win office. It is in the open. Its the voting Jeffys and jtksus that need to understand the policy's constitutionality. Am I backwards here?
-
Kobach should be included in this discussion.
-
Question: what do you have to show to register to vote? I did it so long ago I don't remember.
OK, I looked this up. You have to register in advance so the state has time to verify you are a citizen. You can register with a photo ID or a SSN. Then the state checks and verifies you are alive/a citizen/not a felon.
So, if your identity has to be verified to register, why shouldn't you be required to verify that you are that same person that registered?
-
OK, I looked this up. You have to register in advance so the state has time to verify you are a citizen. You can register with a photo ID or a SSN. Then the state checks and verifies you are alive/a citizen/not a felon.
So, if your identity has to be verified to register, why shouldn't you be required to verify that you are that same person that registered?
I think you currently do by matching your signature. Often the election workers will also ask to see your registration card, although this is actually against the law.
This guy, I gather, wants to also require photo ID at the voting booth, even though the state may have already confirmed your registration with only a SSN. MIR's point is that those who do not have photo IDs will be disenfranchised -- and that those who are disenfranchised will be mostly poor/old Democratic voters. And I'm 99.9% sure this last bit is the reason the Republicans are pushing this idea.
-
Yes, you give a signature when you vote. I didn't know those were ever compared to anything.
I do think you should have to verify your identity at the polls in some manner. What's to stop me from going to your polling place and signing Ghost of Stan Parrish (or Jeffy or MIR, etc) and voting?
-
Yes, you give a signature when you vote. I didn't know those were ever compared to anything.
I do think you should have to verify your identity at the polls in some manner. What's to stop me from going to your polling place and signing Ghost of Stan Parrish (or Jeffy or MIR, etc) and voting?
All I would have to do to vote as someone else would be to glance down at the voter register as I'm waiting in line for the people in front of me. Give them that name. Sign that name. Then I can vote under that name. Now, I'd have to be careful not to pull Ethel or Jenny from the list, but as long as one of the people working at the voting table doesn't know that person, then I'm in the clear. (or go to a different precinct)
Then I can come in again later in the day, when the staffing has changed, and vote as myself, or someone else again.
With an expected turnout of 19% in the primary, it would be highly probable that I could grab a name that won't be used. It would be slightly more difficult in a general election, but as long as I cast my fraudulent vote first, then I have no worries.
If I wanted to crapshoot a little more, I could pay attention to the obituaries in the days leading up to the election. A quick call the the county clerk to verify that "I" had registered would solve that problem.
-
So any evidence this happens?
Thanks, I'll listen off the air.
-
I guess if you're able to see a name on the list while standing in line AND that person doesn't show up later OR the election worker doesn't know that person (might happen), then you've gotten away with your nefarious plan. From what I understand, though, studies show that voting fraud is just not a real issue and the current system seems to work fine. This proposal is all about partisanship (as was the Motor Voter bill by the Dems).
That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID. That work for you MIR? (I doubt it would satisfy the GOP.)
-
What if the potential voter and likely goEMAW politics board mainstay is wearing his :opcat: Does he have to take it off to be matched up to the photo ID?
-
I think its clear enough that the politician doesn't have to defend it. He is using fear of brown-skinned people to win office. It is in the open. Its the voting Jeffys and jtksus that need to understand the policy's constitutionality. Am I backwards here?
So you think only brown-skinned people are too poor/ignorant to obtain a photo ID? Incredibly racist statement.
-
I honestly have no idea how often voter fraud does or does not happen. I do think it's kinda odd that you can walk up, state your name, sign something and vote.
But what else is the Secretary of State going to run on? "Hi, I'm Three-Putt, as your Secretary of State I will work diligently to collect and process the annual filing fees for business entities in a timely and convenient manner."
-
That's the perceived benefit from supporters of this policy...
-
I honestly have no idea how often voter fraud does or does not happen. I do think it's kinda odd that you can walk up, state your name, sign something and vote.
But what else is the Secretary of State going to run on? "Hi, I'm Three-Putt, as your Secretary of State I will work diligently to collect and process the annual filing fees for business entities in a timely and convenient manner."
"I promise to have a cheery and easy to navigate website and I WILL SEND OUT A CERTIFICATE OF GOOD STANDING TO A PROPERLY LICENSED CORPORATION IN A TIMELY MANNER. ON THIS YOU HAVE MY WORD!!!"
Seriously though, I don't think the voting procedure should be an absolute free-for-all.
-
I really don't give a damn one way or another about this proposed policy. All I care about is MIR trying to fool everyone into believing that it is incredibly hard (impossible for many!) to obtain proper ID. It isn't.
-
It sounds like some form of mental illness or substance abuse is a major factor for not being able to get a state issued ID. Allowing these people to vote doesn't seem like it would be a priority over keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting. Not to mention one person voting 20 times.
So humoring old wives tales is the price of denigrating the Constitution that "patriots' care for so deeply, good to know? So this is more important than potentially not allowing a tax paying US citizen the right to vote? So why stop there? I hear people vote based on what they hear on advertisements, so lets give a test based on candidates issues before you get a ballot, if you fail no vote. I hear people like jtksu get to vote, so lets give an IQ test before putting a name on the voter registry, you fail, you don't vote. I hear some people vote based on who someone told them to vote for so lets give a lie detector as well, you fail you don't vote. I hear some people vote just so they can get a free cookie, lets take a finger prick and get their blood sugar levels, you need sugar, you will take your ass home without voting.
Why did this become a big issue after the '08 election? Kinda weird. It wasn't an issue in '00, '04, and '06 and anytime before when there were many places with voting irregularities. What was so different about the '08 election that made this a conservative talking point? Minorities finally turned out to the polls to match their turnout number to their population of the country and angry white people want to blame the election results on millions of illegal aliens voting and hundreds of thousands of dead people and alive cheating libs voting 6 dozen times.
I would respect the conservative that could just admit that this policy focus is insanely hypocritical. The country was founded on voting rights and some want to rescind the rights of fellow Americans. Ronnie is rolling over in his grave
How is requiring an already legally required form of ID rescinding someone's right to vote? I think it's weird that we haven't already required ID to vote. You can't do a ton of important things without an ID, so why should you be able to vote with one? Seems like voting is pretty important...Is it racist to require ID to use a credit card, rent a video, cash a check, obtain a library card, etc?
-
It sounds like some form of mental illness or substance abuse is a major factor for not being able to get a state issued ID. Allowing these people to vote doesn't seem like it would be a priority over keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting. Not to mention one person voting 20 times.
So humoring old wives tales is the price of denigrating the Constitution that "patriots' care for so deeply, good to know? So this is more important than potentially not allowing a tax paying US citizen the right to vote? So why stop there? I hear people vote based on what they hear on advertisements, so lets give a test based on candidates issues before you get a ballot, if you fail no vote. I hear people like jtksu get to vote, so lets give an IQ test before putting a name on the voter registry, you fail, you don't vote. I hear some people vote based on who someone told them to vote for so lets give a lie detector as well, you fail you don't vote. I hear some people vote just so they can get a free cookie, lets take a finger prick and get their blood sugar levels, you need sugar, you will take your ass home without voting.
Why did this become a big issue after the '08 election? Kinda weird. It wasn't an issue in '00, '04, and '06 and anytime before when there were many places with voting irregularities. What was so different about the '08 election that made this a conservative talking point? Minorities finally turned out to the polls to match their turnout number to their population of the country and angry white people want to blame the election results on millions of illegal aliens voting and hundreds of thousands of dead people and alive cheating libs voting 6 dozen times.
I would respect the conservative that could just admit that this policy focus is insanely hypocritical. The country was founded on voting rights and some want to rescind the rights of fellow Americans. Ronnie is rolling over in his grave
How is requiring an already legally required form of ID rescinding someone's right to vote? I think it's weird that we haven't already required ID to vote. You can't do a ton of important things without an ID, so why should you be able to vote with one? Seems like voting is pretty important...Is it racist to require ID to use a credit card, rent a video, cash a check, obtain a library card, etc?
Are any of those fundamental rights of a citizen? This isn't like getting on a plane.
-
So any evidence this happens?
Thanks, I'll listen off the air.
Considering the small-mindedness that you claim I have, and I can think up numerous easy schemes to vote multiple times, do you think it is even remotely possible that a group of higher-thinking individuals could come up with something like that?
Just a quickie Google search showed evidence that things like this do happen in our area: http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html
The sanctity of the voting process needs to be protected, as it is what brings credence to our government and election system. If you've ever screamed about voting problems in previous elections (Bush stole the election!), then showing an ID is a simple way to increase the validity of election proceedings.
As an aside, I'm thinking about going up to my local polling place and standing outside in fatigues, waving a knightstick.
-
It sounds like some form of mental illness or substance abuse is a major factor for not being able to get a state issued ID. Allowing these people to vote doesn't seem like it would be a priority over keeping non-citizens and dead people from voting. Not to mention one person voting 20 times.
So humoring old wives tales is the price of denigrating the Constitution that "patriots' care for so deeply, good to know? So this is more important than potentially not allowing a tax paying US citizen the right to vote? So why stop there? I hear people vote based on what they hear on advertisements, so lets give a test based on candidates issues before you get a ballot, if you fail no vote. I hear people like jtksu get to vote, so lets give an IQ test before putting a name on the voter registry, you fail, you don't vote. I hear some people vote based on who someone told them to vote for so lets give a lie detector as well, you fail you don't vote. I hear some people vote just so they can get a free cookie, lets take a finger prick and get their blood sugar levels, you need sugar, you will take your ass home without voting.
Why did this become a big issue after the '08 election? Kinda weird. It wasn't an issue in '00, '04, and '06 and anytime before when there were many places with voting irregularities. What was so different about the '08 election that made this a conservative talking point? Minorities finally turned out to the polls to match their turnout number to their population of the country and angry white people want to blame the election results on millions of illegal aliens voting and hundreds of thousands of dead people and alive cheating libs voting 6 dozen times.
I would respect the conservative that could just admit that this policy focus is insanely hypocritical. The country was founded on voting rights and some want to rescind the rights of fellow Americans. Ronnie is rolling over in his grave
How is requiring an already legally required form of ID rescinding someone's right to vote? I think it's weird that we haven't already required ID to vote. You can't do a ton of important things without an ID, so why should you be able to vote with one? Seems like voting is pretty important...Is it racist to require ID to use a credit card, rent a video, cash a check, obtain a library card, etc?
Are any of those fundamental rights of a citizen? This isn't like getting on a plane.
Just saying you need an ID to do pretty much anything of importance. It is important to be able to prove you are who you say you are, I would assume this would carry over to something of such significance as voting... Also, maybe the state could offer a reduced or free rate for IDs for people who are experiencing financial hardship? Seems like that would help bring the 2 sides closer on this issue. Maybe tie it into the UI system? Gotta have an ID to obtain a job...
-
So any evidence this happens?
Thanks, I'll listen off the air.
Considering the small-mindedness that you claim I have, and I can think up numerous easy schemes to vote multiple times, do you think it is even remotely possible that a group of higher-thinking individuals could come up with something like that?
Just a quickie Google search showed evidence that things like this do happen in our area: http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html
The sanctity of the voting process needs to be protected, as it is what brings credence to our government and election system. If you've ever screamed about voting problems in previous elections (Bush stole the election!), then showing an ID is a simple way to increase the validity of election proceedings.
As an aside, I'm thinking about going up to my local polling place and standing outside in fatigues, waving a knightstick.
Well I hope you have more success in intimidating voters than that other moron did.
-
:lol: at people thinking there has been any reason to vote in the last 40 years. :lol:
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
If you don't have a bank account, you need one to cash your paycheck.
No, no in fact you don't.
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
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
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.
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I did have to confirm my address on the register when voting yesterday. I don't know if they do that everywhere though.
-
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!
-
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!
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.cox.net%2Fpowercatjeffy%2Ffacepalm2.jpg&hash=f87143a043b199c16a2115092d89b4897b6f643c)
-
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:
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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:
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
Glad to see that the political makeup of this board is becoming a little more balanced. Politics still suck tho
-
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?
-
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!
-
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."
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Ftop-rate.jpg&hash=8c9f1b71acd33c1a2cbf127b3cdf0bfca482b883)
-
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."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Ftop-rate.jpg&hash=8c9f1b71acd33c1a2cbf127b3cdf0bfca482b883)
Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.
-
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."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Ftop-rate.jpg&hash=8c9f1b71acd33c1a2cbf127b3cdf0bfca482b883)
Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.
The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt, so it's a good thing they were scheduled to expire. However, we don't know whether they will all be allowed to. It's said that Obama wants to extend the cuts for most people, but let the cuts for those making over $200,000/yr expire. I agree with that.
-
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."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Ftop-rate.jpg&hash=8c9f1b71acd33c1a2cbf127b3cdf0bfca482b883)
Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.
The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt, so it's a good thing they were scheduled to expire. However, we don't know whether they will all be allowed to. It's said that Obama wants to extend the cuts for most people, but let the cuts for those making over $200,000/yr expire. I agree with that.
Any tax increase will be a job killer. The sooner BO puts the speculation to rest, the better.
-
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."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Ftop-rate.jpg&hash=8c9f1b71acd33c1a2cbf127b3cdf0bfca482b883)
Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.
The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt, so it's a good thing they were scheduled to expire. However, we don't know whether they will all be allowed to. It's said that Obama wants to extend the cuts for most people, but let the cuts for those making over $200,000/yr expire. I agree with that.
Cool.... It's my turn to blame Bush. And Congress.
Cut spending.
And it's all speculation that Obama "wants to extend" the cuts for the poor. It's more likely nothing will be done and they will expire completely.
-
Any tax increase will be a job killer.
Not if the money is used to create jobs.
As the CBO notes, most Bush tax cut dollars go to higher-income households, and these top earners don't spend as much of their income as lower earners. In fact, of 11 potential stimulus policies the CBO recently examined, an extension of all of the Bush tax cuts ties for lowest bang for the buck. (The CBO did not examine the high-income tax cuts separately, but the logic it used suggests that extending those cuts alone would have even less value.) The government could more effectively stimulate the economy by letting the high-income tax cuts expire and using the money for aid to the states, extensions of unemployment insurance benefits and tax credits favoring job creation. Dollar for dollar, each of these measures would have about three times the impact on GDP as continuing the Bush tax cuts.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0802_tax_myths_gale.aspx
-
FairTax
-
Any tax increase will be a job killer.
Not if the money is used to create jobs.
.... tax credits favoring job creation. ....
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0802_tax_myths_gale.aspx
All of the stimulus money should have gone to this.
-
FairTax
:love:
-
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."
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ritholtz.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F04%2Ftop-rate.jpg&hash=8c9f1b71acd33c1a2cbf127b3cdf0bfca482b883)
Very funny, but those in the 10% tax bracket (not rich) are getting a 50% increase, and the marriage penalty is coming back, and a 50% decrease in the EIC per child. Do you see who will be most affected by the tax increase? Not the rich.
The Bush tax cuts added $2 trillion to the national debt
Who honestly cares about the national debt? :dunno:
-
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:
Wasn't going to post in this thread again until I read this bullshit. No one mentioned political parties until sugardick did, so take this strawman and shove it straight up your gash. I don't give a eff if people vote for cunts like Sarah Palin, I just don't want people to lose the right to vote. Don't you rough ridin' dare make this out to be a Democrat save-a-ho issue. No one would even discuss this issue if hard core righties didn't make it an issue. When the eff did you last hear a liberal bring this crap up?
Finally to JTx2. You two worms are the issue with this society. I don't know whether to be sad for you or want to beat your asses. The lazy/dumb talking point should have been ditched in 10th grade. Some crap I'd expect to see in a rural high school newspaper's editorial page. There are real people with real mumped up problems in this country that can't be explained away by stupidity or laziness, I see the crap every day. If I weren't being sincere I'd say that "I hope you don't have something bad happen to you or your offspring so you don't have to experience how mumped life can be." If I am one thing it's sincere so actually I hope your lives and those you care for become rough ridin' runaway trainwrecks. See the only way immature closed minded fucks like you get it is if some foul crap happens to you. You're too comfortable in your current state to phathom there is an alternative. So when you have a kid who turns out to be a gay co-dependent manic depressive strung out on heroine remember my words. I rough ridin' told you so. I don't mind if you don't see the political argument the way I do, that's fine. However, your ivory tower view on the lives of others is going to really eff your world up one day. Have fun with it.
-
Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict? You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day? Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?
-
Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict? You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day? Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?
That had nothing to do with voting just me wishing I'll on your dumbass. But really are you saying a gay person can't make an informed decision? Are you saying someone with an illness can't make an informed decision? Are you saying someone with an addiction can't make an informed decision?
Holy crap you aren't putting on, you are a dumb rough ridin' sheltered bumpkin. I'd bet my house that you have voted for someone who is gay, who has a mental disorder, and who has an addiction. It's pretty likely that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have all three. Seriously, very rough ridin' seriously, get the eff off of this board and meet real life people, and meet people who aren't closed off like you, meet sincere people it will open your eyes.
The internet have given hicks even more reason to stay safe in their bubble, pretty rough ridin' degenerate behavior if you ask me.
-
Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict? You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day? Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?
That had nothing to do with voting just me wishing I'll on your dumbass. But really are you saying a gay person can't make an informed decision? Are you saying someone with an illness can't make an informed decision? Are you saying someone with an addiction can't make an informed decision?
Holy crap you aren't putting on, you are a dumb fracking sheltered bumpkin. I'd bet my house that you have voted for someone who is gay, who has a mental disorder, and who has an addiction. It's pretty likely that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have all three. Seriously, very fracking seriously, get the shazbot! off of this board and meet real life people, and meet people who aren't closed off like you, meet sincere people it will open your eyes.
The internet have given hicks even more reason to stay safe in their bubble, pretty fracking degenerate behavior if you ask me.
YOur ignorance is showing, to be honest I have a sister-in- law who is a heroin addict, I have 2 homosexuals in the family 1 who has a long term relationship of 20 years and has adopted a son. But yes I don't think the heroin addict can make informed decisions. I don't have a problem with homosexuals voting, I don't know that I agree with them all the time but I like them as people and enjoy there company at family reunions. There are times I don't vote because I don't feel I have all the facts I need to make a proper decision. I wish more people would take this approach and vote for who or what you do know. Not because you saw a pretty sign in someones yard and voted on name recognition.
m
-
my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards. :surprised:
-
my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards. :surprised:
I really don't think he has made a valid point yet, other than there are people with difficulites in the USA. What that has to do with me having a relative that has hard times or myself having hard times, I don't know.
I guess his point is that people who have mental illness should be able to decide who leads us(don't disagree totally) and heroin addicts should be at the for front of the voting public :dunno:. Really don't see where MIR is coming from to be honest.
-
That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID. That work for you MIR?
MIR?
-
my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards. :surprised:
I really don't think he has made a valid point yet, other than there are people with difficulties in the USA. What that has to do with me having a relative that has hard times or myself having hard times, I don't know.
I guess his point is that people who have mental illness should be able to decide who leads us(don't disagree totally) and heroin addicts should be at the for front of the voting public :dunno:. Really don't see where MIR is coming from to be honest.
I would have to agree. I still haven't heard a good reason why a person can't get a valid state issued ID. I do admire you for trying to help these poor souls, but I still believe keeping our elections honest is much more important than to allow a vote for those few that are so mentally ill they can't get an ID.
-
Would probably be better for everyone if they just didnt vote
-
I'd love to switch to the purple-ink finger system that works flawlessly in Iraq.
-
That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID. That work for you MIR?
MIR?
I'd be open to listening to how showing the voter registration card would work. I wouldn't even mind showing a state issued photo id if the way you got a state issued id was streamlined and cheaper. Bureaucracy in this country has made these processes much harder than they need to be. Voting has yet to be tainted by this and people want to screw with that, makes me dumbfounded. BTW the reason that voting has not been touched by the bureaucracy in 234 years is that voting in a basic right. One of the greatest travesties in his country is that the improsioned isn't allowed to vote. We pay for cable television & dental care for prisoners, but we don't allow them to vote. Pretty mumped up.
-
Gay,manic-depressive heroin addict? You really those people can make an informed decision come voting day? Or do people just round them up and cast votes for them?
That had nothing to do with voting just me wishing I'll on your dumbass. But really are you saying a gay person can't make an informed decision? Are you saying someone with an illness can't make an informed decision? Are you saying someone with an addiction can't make an informed decision?
Holy crap you aren't putting on, you are a dumb fracking sheltered bumpkin. I'd bet my house that you have voted for someone who is gay, who has a mental disorder, and who has an addiction. It's pretty likely that there are people on both sides of the aisle who have all three. Seriously, very fracking seriously, get the shazbot! off of this board and meet real life people, and meet people who aren't closed off like you, meet sincere people it will open your eyes.
The internet have given hicks even more reason to stay safe in their bubble, pretty fracking degenerate behavior if you ask me.
YOur ignorance is showing, to be honest I have a sister-in- law who is a heroin addict, I have 2 homosexuals in the family 1 who has a long term relationship of 20 years and has adopted a son. But yes I don't think the heroin addict can make informed decisions. I don't have a problem with homosexuals voting, I don't know that I agree with them all the time but I like them as people and enjoy there company at family reunions. There are times I don't vote because I don't feel I have all the facts I need to make a proper decision. I wish more people would take this approach and vote for who or what you do know. Not because you saw a pretty sign in someones yard and voted on name recognition.
m
I have a sister-in- law who is a heroin addict
You aren't saying that your sister should have a basic right removed just because she has an illness, are you?
But yes I don't think the heroin addict can make informed decisions.
Are you differentiating heroin addiction from other addictions, or are you saying anyone with a substance abuse problem can't make an informed decision? Either way that's stupid. There are people who have these addictions who hold office. They are sharp enough to hold office, but the people who elect them can't be smart enough to vote? Very dumb. We just had a 2 term president who was an admitted alcoholic and had a coke problem. Should everyone who voted for him have their voting rights stripped? Should everyone who voted for him twice be castrated?
There are times I don't vote because I don't feel I have all the facts I need to make a proper decision. I wish more people would take this approach and vote for who or what you do know.
This is such a subjective standard that it doesn't mean anything. What exactly is an informed decision and who gets to make this judgement? On a presidential ballot there are usually between 6-12 P & VP pairs. If you only know the policies of 2-3 does that mean you aren't informed enough to vote? If you are voting for a state senate race and you only know one candidate but what you do know of her you completely identify with, are you entitled to get to know another candidate or should you be satisfied with the choice you are going to make? Or should you just have an understanding of basic civics? If this is the case I can make the decision that you never should vote becasue you don't understand that this country was founded on voting being a right. You can't profess to love the country and what the founding fathers did yet have disdain for their intent when laying the building blocks for the country.
-
If you only know the policies of 2-3 does that mean you aren't informed enough to vote? If you are voting for a state senate race and you only know one candidate but what you do know of her you completely identify with, are you entitled to get to know another candidate or should you be satisfied with the choice you are going to make? Or should you just have an understanding of basic civics? If this is the case I can make the decision that you never should vote becasue you don't understand that this country was founded on voting being a right. You can't profess to love the country and what the founding fathers did yet have disdain for their intent when laying the building blocks for the country.
I agree with you 100% on this. But there are people out there that have no clue what the person they voted for really stands for they just saw the sign in the yard and say oh yeah I recognize that name I'll vote for him. I know this because I talk to an guy last week that did that very thing. But if you know there policies and what they are running on and like them vote for them. I think that is an informed decision.
As for the right to vote only land owners were origininaly allowed to vote so no it was not a right for every citizen.
-
my god, MIR is wiping his ass with you tards. :surprised:
I really don't think he has made a valid point yet, other than there are people with difficulites in the USA. What that has to do with me having a relative that has hard times or myself having hard times, I don't know.
I guess his point is that people who have mental illness should be able to decide who leads us(don't disagree totally) and heroin addicts should be at the for front of the voting public :dunno:. Really don't see where MIR is coming from to be honest.
My point is simple. Voting in this country is a right. There shouldn't be some subjective standard to remove this right from ANY American Citizen. Photo IDs, health tests, IQ, tests, mental capability tests are all unnecessary. Crack open an 8th grade civics book, for the most part we are still doing it the way it was intended and it has worked for 234 years. There is a sector of the population who wants to change what our founding fathers had in mind because their party lost a presidential election. All of a sudden this strawman of rampant voter fraud has appeared because people can't wrap their hands around the fact that the American public elected a half black dude named Barack Obama President. So there had to be hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and dead blacks voting.
The entire talking point is insulting. It is hilarous that some pols are using this as a cornerstone of their platform. "Hey vote for me this way and after I benefit from the system as it stands, I'll change it."
Whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal I am not sure how the basic point can't be argued. Don't screw with basic rights because of some made up issue.
-
If you only know the policies of 2-3 does that mean you aren't informed enough to vote? If you are voting for a state senate race and you only know one candidate but what you do know of her you completely identify with, are you entitled to get to know another candidate or should you be satisfied with the choice you are going to make? Or should you just have an understanding of basic civics? If this is the case I can make the decision that you never should vote becasue you don't understand that this country was founded on voting being a right. You can't profess to love the country and what the founding fathers did yet have disdain for their intent when laying the building blocks for the country.
I agree with you 100% on this. But there are people out there that have no clue what the person they voted for really stands for they just saw the sign in the yard and say oh yeah I recognize that name I'll vote for him. I know this because I talk to an guy last week that did that very thing. But if you know there policies and what they are running on and like them vote for them. I think that is an informed decision.
As for the right to vote only land owners were origininaly allowed to vote so no it was not a right for every citizen.
I knew someone would bring this up, glad you mentioned it. Slaves weren't seen as humans, now we know better. It is worse for us to acknowledge someone as a human but still will refuse to grant that person their basic rights. Ignorance in its most basic form is much more excusable than elitism.
-
That being said, as an extra precaution, I could accept requiring a voter to show their registration card that had been mailed to them OR a photo ID. That work for you MIR?
MIR?
I'd be open to listening to how showing the voter registration card would work. I wouldn't even mind showing a state issued photo id if the way you got a state issued id was streamlined and cheaper. Bureaucracy in this country has made these processes much harder than they need to be. Voting has yet to be tainted by this and people want to screw with that, makes me dumbfounded. BTW the reason that voting has not been touched by the bureaucracy in 234 years is that voting in a basic right. One of the greatest travesties in his country is that the improsioned isn't allowed to vote. We pay for cable television & dental care for prisoners, but we don't allow them to vote. Pretty mumped up.
I'd love to get rid of several layers of bureaucracy. Many libs don't seem to like that though. Removing bureaucracy = reduced service. BS
Many prisoners are working within the prison system as well. Since they are only paid a pittance, these other things could easily be considered a job benefit, something the Prison Unions would approve of. In essence, they are working for regular wages and having deductions taken out exceeding 80% to pay for these things. I'm ok with newspapers or magazines as well, things that allow them to keep up with the outside world. I'm not OK with internet, something that allows them to repeatedly contact the outside world, essentially minimizing the prison barriers. I do not believe that prisoners should vote either. If you are imprisoned, you have done something that has caused you to lose the rights of a free man. Once they are out, give them voters probation. Stay clean on the outside for 5 years beyond your sentence, then you can have your voting rights returned.
-
Wasn't going to post in this thread again until I read this bullshit. No one mentioned political parties until sugardick did, so take this strawman and shove it straight up your gash. I don't give a shazbot! if people vote for $!#*s like Sarah Palin, I just don't want people to lose the right to vote. Don't you fracking dare make this out to be a Democrat save-a-ho issue. No one would even discuss this issue if hard core righties didn't make it an issue. When the shazbot! did you last hear a liberal bring this crap up?
The first post in this thread
Can one of you shitheads who are "patriots" explain something to me? Why do conservatives wrap themselves up in the flag and excuse everything from racism to letting poor people die by using the constitution and the bible as convenient excuses, but dumb asses like most of you and this jackass Claeys will crap on the constitution to greatly limit the voting pool by only allowing us fortunate enough to have a state issued photo ID to do so? Also can someone please tell me how photo IDs can eliminate voter fraud?
:dunno:
-
Wasn't going to post in this thread again until I read this bullshit. No one mentioned political parties until sugardick did, so take this strawman and shove it straight up your gash. I don't give a shazbot! if people vote for $!#*s like Sarah Palin, I just don't want people to lose the right to vote. Don't you fracking dare make this out to be a Democrat save-a-ho issue. No one would even discuss this issue if hard core righties didn't make it an issue. When the shazbot! did you last hear a liberal bring this crap up?
The first post in this thread
Can one of you shitheads who are "patriots" explain something to me? Why do conservatives wrap themselves up in the flag and excuse everything from racism to letting poor people die by using the constitution and the bible as convenient excuses, but dumb asses like most of you and this jackass Claeys will crap on the constitution to greatly limit the voting pool by only allowing us fortunate enough to have a state issued photo ID to do so? Also can someone please tell me how photo IDs can eliminate voter fraud?
:dunno:
Wasn't aware "conservative" was a political party.
you're stupid
-
Very intelligent and well constructed rebuttal.