Dead People voting in the election?

[kstatefreak42]

LOL......


No question in my mind that voter fraud is rampant in this year's "election"

[the KHAN!]

There is technically a dead candidate (Ron Paul) running, so I fail to see the problem here.

[HeinBallz]

There is technically a dead candidate (Ron Paul) running, so I fail to see the problem here.

You ever get the feeling no one likes you?

[kstatefreak42]

There is technically a dead candidate (Ron Paul) running, so I fail to see the problem here.

[the KHAN!]

There is technically a dead candidate (Ron Paul) running, so I fail to see the problem here.

You ever get the feeling no one likes you?

I'm sorry I insulted the old ass candidate who has no shot of winning the primary. Would you please like me now?

[kstatefreak42]

There is technically a dead candidate (Ron Paul) running, so I fail to see the problem here.

You ever get the feeling no one likes you?

I'm sorry I insulted the old ass candidate who has no shot of winning the primary. Would you please like me now?

your done

[p1k3]

If RP has no shot, then America has no shot.

[kstatefreak42]

Liberty. Its something that we all can agree on.

[the KHAN!]

BO is going to win the election. Let's be honest with ourselves. It's not the death of Liberty either.

[p1k3]

Liberty is slowly dying. Barry wont take it away over night. One law, one regulation at a time. Just like the republicans.

[the KHAN!]

The entire gay marriage thing is just the beginning. Isn't it obvious what Barry's trying to do???

[Rage Against the McKee]

Liberty is slowly dying. Barry wont take it away over night. One law, one regulation at a time. Just like the republicans.

The republican party needs to die. Hopefully we can get a libertarian party (only somewhat less extreme than Ron Paul) to replace them.

[the KHAN!]

Honest question, Nuts Kicked: Why has Libertarianism stopped being a joke to us and began to be a viable alternative in the eyes of some?

Is it that the Republicans have sucked so badly, and the Democrats failed to suck less?


I don't see how turning from both of these groups to a third, even crazier faction could ever be a good idea.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Honest question, Nuts Kicked: Why has Libertarianism stopped being a joke to us and began to be a viable alternative in the eyes of some?

Is it that the Republicans have sucked so badly, and the Democrats failed to suck less?


I don't see how turning from both of these groups to a third, even crazier faction could ever be a good idea.

What is crazy about not wanting the government involved in your private life, only using the military for national defense, and not bankrupting the country? Ron Paul is a tough sell for me because I think he is too extreme. I think there is a good purpose for every government agency except for the TSA, but I think just about all of them need a greatly reduced role. For example, the USDA should be funding demonstration programs, conservation efforts, and research, but they should not be subsidizing corn. The EPA should be providing guidelines for air and water quality, but those guidelines should be enforced at the local level. I also prefer not to blame the Fed for all of our financial troubles.

I still agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any of the other candidates. Some of his proposals are kind of scary, though.

[p1k3]

The two party system doesnt work. Congress cant even pass a damn budget.

Libertarianism is only crazy if you watch fox news and cnn

The issue is that everyone in the two party system works for someone else. A third party could work towards getting crap done.

[the KHAN!]

Honest question, Nuts Kicked: Why has Libertarianism stopped being a joke to us and began to be a viable alternative in the eyes of some?

Is it that the Republicans have sucked so badly, and the Democrats failed to suck less?


I don't see how turning from both of these groups to a third, even crazier faction could ever be a good idea.

What is crazy about not wanting the government involved in your private life, only using the military for national defense, and not bankrupting the country? Ron Paul is a tough sell for me because I think he is too extreme. I think there is a good purpose for every government agency except for the TSA, but I think just about all of them need a greatly reduced role. For example, the USDA should be funding demonstration programs, conservation efforts, and research, but they should not be subsidizing corn. The EPA should be providing guidelines for air and water quality, but those guidelines should be enforced at the local level. I also prefer not to blame the Fed for all of our financial troubles.

I still agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any of the other candidates. Some of his proposals are kind of scary, though.

That's not crazy, it's incredibly vague though.  To what point do you not want Government in your private lives. Don't want them in your bedroom. Okay. Don't want them telling you where you can dump your trash? Don't want them telling you how fast to drive, what drugs you can take?  There's a little thing called the Social Contract and it's a basic concept of society.  I'm afraid we're bound to give up some of our freedoms to the Government in exchange for things like protection and public services.

Only using the military for national defense:  this is also vague.  What type of national defense. Only using it if the Chinese end up pulling a Red Dawn?  Economic defense? What would happen if our NATO allies were to be attacked?  Do you support using the NAVY to assist victims of natural disasters in neighboring countries like Haiti? Was Operation Desert Storm justifiable to you? Can we honestly turn our backs on the world when we are expected to at least be a global leader in an ever globalizing world, or would you prefer China do it instead to our detriment and their gain?

TSA: I'm not sure I agree here. What is the alternative? I can see a very good reason for the TSA to exist.  Tons of damage can be done nationally when an Airplane is taken by terrorists, both physically and financially.  But I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am more interested in my own well being and if getting a pat down or having to go through an x-ray means the chances of me dying in a hijacking/bombing/etc, then I'm fine with it.

The two party system doesnt work. Congress cant even pass a damn budget.

Libertarianism is only crazy if you watch fox news and cnn

The issue is that everyone in the two party system works for someone else. A third party could work towards getting crap done.

Yeah, the 2 party system is pretty much designed in such a way that a third party is next to impossible. Whatever issues the third party is based on will be taken by the other two parties and made into issues for those parties.  People bitch about the 2 party system all the time but never give it credit for being a very stable system that doesn't allow for any insane political parties to gain control at all. Say what you will about the inefficiencies of the Dems and Reps, but at least they're not throwing people into camps or any of that nonsense.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Honest question, Nuts Kicked: Why has Libertarianism stopped being a joke to us and began to be a viable alternative in the eyes of some?

Is it that the Republicans have sucked so badly, and the Democrats failed to suck less?


I don't see how turning from both of these groups to a third, even crazier faction could ever be a good idea.

What is crazy about not wanting the government involved in your private life, only using the military for national defense, and not bankrupting the country? Ron Paul is a tough sell for me because I think he is too extreme. I think there is a good purpose for every government agency except for the TSA, but I think just about all of them need a greatly reduced role. For example, the USDA should be funding demonstration programs, conservation efforts, and research, but they should not be subsidizing corn. The EPA should be providing guidelines for air and water quality, but those guidelines should be enforced at the local level. I also prefer not to blame the Fed for all of our financial troubles.

I still agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any of the other candidates. Some of his proposals are kind of scary, though.

That's not crazy, it's incredibly vague though.  To what point do you not want Government in your private lives. Don't want them in your bedroom. Okay. OK


 Don't want them telling you where you can dump your trash? Local issue.

Don't want them telling you how fast to drive, Local issue

what drugs you can take? Let people take what they want to take and offer rehab programs. Rehab is much cheaper than prison. 

There's a little thing called the Social Contract and it's a basic concept of society.  I'm afraid we're bound to give up some of our freedoms to the Government in exchange for things like protection and public services.

Only using the military for national defense:  this is also vague.  What type of national defense. Only using it if the Chinese end up pulling a Red Dawn?Yes.  Economic defense? No. What would happen if our NATO allies were to be attacked? We would help them.  Do you support using the NAVY to assist victims of natural disasters in neighboring countries like Haiti? No. Was Operation Desert Storm justifiable to you? No. Can we honestly turn our backs on the world when we are expected to at least be a global leader in an ever globalizing world, or would you prefer China do it instead to our detriment and their gain? If by turning our backs on them, you mean stop bombing them and interfering with their affairs, then yes.

TSA: I'm not sure I agree here. What is the alternative? Let the airport provide their own security. I can see a very good reason for the TSA to exist.  Tons of damage can be done nationally when an Airplane is taken by terrorists, both physically and financially.  But I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am more interested in my own well being and if getting a pat down or having to go through an x-ray means the chances of me dying in a hijacking/bombing/etc, then I'm fine with it. The TSA has never caught a single terrorist as a result of the x-ray and pat down. Their sole mission is to make paranoid people feel safer by hassling them for an extra 30 min - 1 hour before their flight.

[HeinBallz]

Honest question, Nuts Kicked: Why has Libertarianism stopped being a joke to us and began to be a viable alternative in the eyes of some?

Is it that the Republicans have sucked so badly, and the Democrats failed to suck less?


I don't see how turning from both of these groups to a third, even crazier faction could ever be a good idea.

What is crazy about not wanting the government involved in your private life, only using the military for national defense, and not bankrupting the country? Ron Paul is a tough sell for me because I think he is too extreme. I think there is a good purpose for every government agency except for the TSA, but I think just about all of them need a greatly reduced role. For example, the USDA should be funding demonstration programs, conservation efforts, and research, but they should not be subsidizing corn. The EPA should be providing guidelines for air and water quality, but those guidelines should be enforced at the local level. I also prefer not to blame the Fed for all of our financial troubles.

I still agree with Ron Paul on more issues than any of the other candidates. Some of his proposals are kind of scary, though.

That's not crazy, it's incredibly vague though.  To what point do you not want Government in your private lives. Don't want them in your bedroom. Okay. Don't want them telling you where you can dump your trash? Don't want them telling you how fast to drive, what drugs you can take?  There's a little thing called the Social Contract and it's a basic concept of society.  I'm afraid we're bound to give up some of our freedoms to the Government in exchange for things like protection and public services.

Only using the military for national defense:  this is also vague.  What type of national defense. Only using it if the Chinese end up pulling a Red Dawn?  Economic defense? What would happen if our NATO allies were to be attacked?  Do you support using the NAVY to assist victims of natural disasters in neighboring countries like Haiti? Was Operation Desert Storm justifiable to you? Can we honestly turn our backs on the world when we are expected to at least be a global leader in an ever globalizing world, or would you prefer China do it instead to our detriment and their gain?

TSA: I'm not sure I agree here. What is the alternative? I can see a very good reason for the TSA to exist.  Tons of damage can be done nationally when an Airplane is taken by terrorists, both physically and financially.  But I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am more interested in my own well being and if getting a pat down or having to go through an x-ray means the chances of me dying in a hijacking/bombing/etc, then I'm fine with it.

The two party system doesnt work. Congress cant even pass a damn budget.

Libertarianism is only crazy if you watch fox news and cnn

The issue is that everyone in the two party system works for someone else. A third party could work towards getting crap done.

Yeah, the 2 party system is pretty much designed in such a way that a third party is next to impossible. Whatever issues the third party is based on will be taken by the other two parties and made into issues for those parties.  People bitch about the 2 party system all the time but never give it credit for being a very stable system that doesn't allow for any insane political parties to gain control at all. Say what you will about the inefficiencies of the Dems and Reps, but at least they're not throwing people into camps or any of that nonsense.

You're the product of years of social engineering influencing your thought process.  Laws can still exist on a local level that tell you not to drive too fast or throw your trash in your neighbors yard.  You make it sound like people are dumb shits for not wanting the federal government to tell them how to have healthy lives.  Let me ask you this;  do you avoid doing drugs because your afraid the federal government is going to crack down on you or because you're employer might  find out and fire you?  Do you avoid littering because you're afraid the federal government will fine you? Or do you just like a clean neighborhood? The point you're failing to see is a social contract is enforced by society - not the government. 

Government force: there's a reason it takes an act of congress to declare war; it avoids the situation where a president takes care of personal business with an executive order.  Was desert storm justifiable? Did congress get involved?  Just because they didn't doesn't mean it wasn't justified - but we'll never know for sure.  Why doesn't the U.S. get involved in all humanitarian efforts?  If you can give me a valid response without pointing out there is financial gain in some of these conflicts and not in others than good for you.  The problem which is becoming  increasingly evident to everyone is we're choosing sides in civil wars based off of where & who we'll be gaining financially from.  Is there any wonder why terrorist are taking aim at us?  Especially when our own army is so stressed after four tours they're walking into town and murdering 16 men women & children in their sleep.  If you think that's all fine and dandy, then I question whether you should have an opinion on military or foreign affairs.  For the record - no one expects us to be the world leader in foreign affairs and the fact that we think we should is what makes most people hate Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kstatefreak42]

HeinzBallz-Thank you.

[the KHAN!]

That's not crazy, it's incredibly vague though.  To what point do you not want Government in your private lives. Don't want them in your bedroom. Okay. OK


 Don't want them telling you where you can dump your trash? Local issue.

Don't want them telling you how fast to drive, Local issue

what drugs you can take? Let people take what they want to take and offer rehab programs. Rehab is much cheaper than prison. 

There's a little thing called the Social Contract and it's a basic concept of society.  I'm afraid we're bound to give up some of our freedoms to the Government in exchange for things like protection and public services.

Only using the military for national defense:  this is also vague.  What type of national defense. Only using it if the Chinese end up pulling a Red Dawn?Yes.  Economic defense? No. What would happen if our NATO allies were to be attacked? We would help them.  Do you support using the NAVY to assist victims of natural disasters in neighboring countries like Haiti? No. Was Operation Desert Storm justifiable to you? No. Can we honestly turn our backs on the world when we are expected to at least be a global leader in an ever globalizing world, or would you prefer China do it instead to our detriment and their gain? If by turning our backs on them, you mean stop bombing them and interfering with their affairs, then yes.

TSA: I'm not sure I agree here. What is the alternative? Let the airport provide their own security. I can see a very good reason for the TSA to exist.  Tons of damage can be done nationally when an Airplane is taken by terrorists, both physically and financially.  But I don't give a rat's ass about that, I am more interested in my own well being and if getting a pat down or having to go through an x-ray means the chances of me dying in a hijacking/bombing/etc, then I'm fine with it. The TSA has never caught a single terrorist as a result of the x-ray and pat down. Their sole mission is to make paranoid people feel safer by hassling them for an extra 30 min - 1 hour before their flight.

Most of these were rhetorical questions I just farted out. However...

Drugs: Let them take what they want? You realize that simply screwing your life up isn't the only reason why they're illegal right?  I couldn't care less about Marijuana, but other drugs can literally make you crazy and have you take actions you otherwise wouldn't do. People commit violent crimes while under the influence that they would never dream of doing otherwise, not to mention drug addictions often leave people in poverty with little option but to thieve and rob in order to pay for their addictions.

As far as the Military goes, it looks like you'd support no action, even that of a purely humanitarian nature unless we or NATO allies were physically attacked.  This is more or less pre-1920's isolationism.  This ignores the benefits of any military action, peaceful included that we've done in the last century.  What happens if we don't arm the Mujaheddin in the 80's. Does the Soviet Union get bogged down or do they take and hold Afghanistan and possibly move on to the oil rich Middle East and royally eff us economically? Very similarly in the 90's, what happens if we don't step up with the UN and force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait?  We get raped for Oil.  If we don't send troops to Korea, the South Falls and today we have a crackpot in charge of the entirety of the country and manages to make the region even more volatile than it already is. Have you bought into the idea that everyone hates us because of our military actions? The Kurds are in love with us, and by rights our inaction towards them should make them hate us.  We suffered almost zero casualties in Iraq in Kurdish territories for several years.  Israel loves us for the aid we offer and protection our mere name provides them.  Taiwan, Georgia, Albania, Kosovo, etc are all Pro-American due to our past military interventions, or current partnerships militarily.  I'm sure there are many nations that appreciate the large amount of humanitarian missions our military has conducted. Earned zero enemies there.

You're the product of years of social engineering influencing your thought process.  Laws can still exist on a local level that tell you not to drive too fast or throw your trash in your neighbors yard.  You make it sound like people are dumb shits for not wanting the federal government to tell them how to have healthy lives.  Let me ask you this;  do you avoid doing drugs because your afraid the federal government is going to crack down on you or because you're employer might  find out and fire you?  Do you avoid littering because you're afraid the federal government will fine you? Or do you just like a clean neighborhood? The point you're failing to see is a social contract is enforced by society - not the government. 

I'm failing to see some point. Because I really don't see how any of the above really matters that much.  Yes, Local laws and ordinances are important. However, there is certainly a place for the Federal Government to make nationwide laws and uniformity in this country.

Government force: there's a reason it takes an act of congress to declare war; it avoids the situation where a president takes care of personal business with an executive order.  Was desert storm justifiable? Did congress get involved?  Just because they didn't doesn't mean it wasn't justified - but we'll never know for sure.  Why doesn't the U.S. get involved in all humanitarian efforts?  If you can give me a valid response without pointing out there is financial gain in some of these conflicts and not in others than good for you.  The problem which is becoming  increasingly evident to everyone is we're choosing sides in civil wars based off of where & who we'll be gaining financially from.  Is there any wonder why terrorist are taking aim at us?  Especially when our own army is so stressed after four tours they're walking into town and murdering 16 men women & children in their sleep.  If you think that's all fine and dandy, then I question whether you should have an opinion on military or foreign affairs.  For the record - no one expects us to be the world leader in foreign affairs and the fact that we think we should is what makes most people hate Americans.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I talked about this in some detail above, but I'll try and get to your main questions.  Why not all humanitarian efforts? I don't know. We have certainly gone in to some situations and dealt with some horrible dictators at the same time as helping ourselves economically (Gulf War, Iraqi Freedom), but we've also managed to get ourselves into some actions for no reason other than people needed us (Kosovo, Somalia).  Look, I'm not suggesting we bend over and form some World Government like those EU loving idiots in Brussels. But there are a lot of benefits to using military power to ensure stability in the world. The guy who killed those people due to PTSD and stress is regrettable.  However, that's war.  Sometimes this crap happens. It happens in Just and unjust wars alike by the "bad guys" and "good guys". 

People do expect us to take the lead. We are the largest contributor to NATO's budget and more often than not the largest contributor of manpower in operations. We are the largest contributor to the United Nations as well. We contribute the most to Foreign Aid. People expect a lot out of the most powerful nation on the planet.

[HeinBallz]

I talked about this in some detail above, but I'll try and get to your main questions.  Why not all humanitarian efforts? I don't know. We have certainly gone in to some situations and dealt with some horrible dictators at the same time as helping ourselves economically (Gulf War, Iraqi Freedom), but we've also managed to get ourselves into some actions for no reason other than people needed us (Kosovo, Somalia).  Look, I'm not suggesting we bend over and form some World Government like those EU loving idiots in Brussels. But there are a lot of benefits to using military power to ensure stability in the world. The guy who killed those people due to PTSD and stress is regrettable.  However, that's war.  Sometimes this crap happens. It happens in Just and unjust wars alike by the "bad guys" and "good guys". 

People do expect us to take the lead. We are the largest contributor to NATO's budget and more often than not the largest contributor of manpower in operations. We are the largest contributor to the United Nations as well. We contribute the most to Foreign Aid. People expect a lot out of the most powerful nation on the planet.

Here's the deal though, 100,000 troops in the middle east where we're essentially taking sides in a civil war.  It's justified to the American people by making the statement that there's "weapons of mass destruction" when we've now found that there never was a WMD anywhere.  Now we're being told Iran is developing a nuclear power.  They have no space program.  They have no navy.  Unless they're capable of developing a missile to make the 14 hour flight with a yet to be developed nuclear device - I wouldn't consider them any kind of threat to the US.   Yet we're still being fed the same line we were 10 years ago.  "We have to act now, they have weapons of mass destruction!!!"  Aren't you starting to get a little leery of the people trying to control everyone with fear?   Take this into account; a couple of years ago, a satellite was to re-enter the atmosphere and impact somewhere over the US.   The media made a huge hoopla about the U.S. military breaking up the satellite during re-entry with a laser.  With all of the top secret military weapons we're likely to have, wouldn't you think if we can disintegrate space junk traveling at the speed of an asteroid, we would have a way to intercept a nuclear missile coming from over 6,000 miles away?  I don't buy this fear mongering being spread by the left & the right one bit.  So where's the gain?  Why is there such an effort to stay in the middle east? Oil? I don't pretend to be an economist, but I'm sure there's some rich land owners that wouldn't mind pumping $$ into legislators pockets to keep oil prices at a premium.   

Look, every four years we all listen to these promises and we always complain about what a bunch of liars politicians are. All I know is there is a guy running for president that is saying we've got tons of wasteful spending within our military.  This line of thinking scares the crap out of the average American.   But right now, the average American isn't aware that we have over 50,000 troops in Germany & over 30,000 troops in China and we're occupying over 170 other countries.  Why?  Don't you think this has some sort of impact?  Have you ever lived in Manhattan?   Fort Riley soldiers have a pretty bad rap with the locals.  You don't get the name Riley Rat for nothing.  Granted, It's likely 1% of the guys out there giving the rest a bad name, but this 1% is representing Americans world wide.   I don't know if you've noticed this but right now, we're not at war with a government, we're at war with civilians.  We're at war with terrorist. You talk about all of these countries that love us because of our occupation within their country, but I question who really loves us.  Their local government?   Terrorism isn't born within international governments.  They're created within the ranks of the people sick & tired of their sisters aunts & mothers being raped by the 1% of military men.  The bombing of their neighborhoods.   The anti-missile guns testing at 3:00 am terrifying your children.  You call it the cost of war.   I call it the birth of a new terrorist every day. And for what?  What possible reason could we have to occupy two countries with over 80,000 troops... two countries we haven't been at war with for nearly 70 years?  It's irresponsible.  It's wasteful spending.  It's foreign policy that causes more harm than good.   Isolationism is a funny word coming from politics that still impose a trade embargo on Cuba. Keeping your military home to protect America seems more patriotic than anything else.  Bottom line though, If our financial issues aren't resolved, we won't be able to help anyone in any humanitarian efforts...  even though I think you're full of crap and we've never got involved in anything strictly humanitarian.

Changing topics now to Drugs.  Do you think the people that want to do heroine & cocaine are currently not doing them out of fear of being arrested?  People that want these drugs can get them at a low cost & whenever they want. There's nothing stopping them. It's like gun control - It only affects people who obey the law or as I'm sure you've heard before: "Only criminals are allowed to use guns."  Law abiding citizens don't need laws to make them live healthy lives & make good choices.  You're also tying drugs along with violent crimes like it's an inevitable outcome - making it sound as if cocaine & acid were to be made legal,  people would also be allowed to commit violent crimes.   Would we not be able to prosecute violent crimes with or without drug use?  You've been told your entire life that bad people "do hard core drugs and commit violent crimes".  You're making the assumption that if you remove hard core drugs & stop violent crimes that bad people would cease to exist, when in reality, you just don't know people.   There are kids that are told their entire life what they can't do.   They're intimidated with fear to believe that if they do these things bad things will happen to them - when yes that may be true - It's not stopping them from wanting to do these bad things.  People cannot be controlled with fear.  Take the redneck dad that shot his daughters laptop and posted the video on youtube & facebook.   If your parent did that to you, would you stop being an ungrateful crap head?   Or would you become better at hiding being an ungrateful crap head?  Or better yet, do something even crazier than shooting a computer, just to piss off your parents and show them you are in control of your life.  Just continue this cycle until you end up so far overboard that you end up killing your parents & steal their truck to drive to Mexico.  Look, I had the option to smoke pot & drop acid in college.  You know what I did?  I passed the bong right on by and didn't take the pills.  I don't know why I didn't try it; but I know my parents instilled in me that no matter what mistake I made, they would stand by me & love me. They didn't tell me "No".  They didn't put fear in me - they allowed me to think critically about outcomes of my actions.  They educated me on the mistakes people make with drugs and showed examples of people ruining their lives with drug use.  I made the choice for myself to not partake.  It's all based off the simple principle that people don't like being told "No, You can't have this.  It's not good for you."  And if they are in a position where they don't have any love in their life - or they don't care about the outcome - or they just want to be obstinate to show everyone they are in control of their life. They'll do it anyway.  That's our drug policy right now.  I guarantee you our approach with drug control is creating more druggies than it's stopping.  Education would be a far more effective tool in fighting drug problems than prohibiting them.

Cigarettes are a great example of educating people into taking better care of themselves.   When I was under the legal age, everyone I knew smoked.  It was rebellious.  It was relatively safe when compared to doing drugs. And it was illegal.  It didn't stop them.  You know when they stopped smoking?   When they were of the legal age and it wasn't rebellious anymore.  They were able to look at it logically and through past education, they knew it was bad for them. They stopped because it was their choice.   Will more people do drugs if it were legal?  Maybe at first - but I don't see being the Hollywood dramatization of the likes of "hangover" where seemingly responsible people become maniacal violent criminals because they tried a little crank. 

But whatever dude.  Believe whatever you want.  I'm done saying the same crap over & over and arguing with people terrified of what the government has told you to be terrified of.  You post pictures of Ron Paul with tin foil on his head - yet you're the one living in fear.   Good luck with that.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

LOL......


No question in my mind that voter fraud is rampant in this year's "election"

In Kansas, the Repubs proposed the idea of requiring ID to vote, the purpose being to further reduce voter fraud.   I thought it seemed like a perfectly rationale idea, assumed it was a bipartisan measure and honestly was surprised it hadn't been a requirement for decades.

The left went into a complete hissy fit over the idea, they called the Repubs Nazis and Racists and said they were targeting minorities and indigent people by requiring proof of ID to vote.  They then went on to claim that voter fraud "wasn't all that bad" and that there was no reason for such a measure or than racism and preventing poor, crazy and Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) people from voting.  I was stunned at the response.  It was so absurd and ridiculous.  Not a single reasonable or logical complaint.  Plus it seemed inherently racist to presume minorities are too stupid to know how to get an ID.

Sidenote:  I was also surprised to find out Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and crazy people were permitted to vote.

Pretty tell tail sign of who's cheating.  Never mind that ACORN abomination from 2008.

[kstatefreak42]

Heinzballz is giving out a dose of reality. And i absolutely love it. We need more guys like Heinzballz. Wake up people.


Joe Rogan anybody?