198 replies to this topic

[Frank M]

No, I said some...and only in contrast to worms' comment that democrats think for themselves. Lost in all of this, least by some, is that I did not make a (or the) declaratory statement, I just responded to it. It is bizarre to me how or why it is anybody would want to turn a simple discussion into a challenge, or be called to task on it - some just have an itchy trigger finger for that I guess.... What's next, Red Rover, Red Rover?

A general admission of the facts would be nice, as in admitting that both Democrats and Republicans are the same in this example instead of just demonizing Democrats' voting habits while conveniently omitting Republicans' propensity for the same behaviors, all the while dancing around that little bit of intellectual dishonesty by saying "I would have said that if only you asked the right questions!"

And where do you think you are? It's the Geek Bored! All political comments get challenged, especially ones that denigrate one side or the other. A guy who has been here almost 12 years with 22000 posts hasn't figured that out yet?

x ~120~

[Voltaire]

Years ago, the first time I voted, I pulled out my drivers license. Even though the lady at the table didn't know who I was (presumably... I certainly didn't know her) I found out that I didn't need ID to do so. I was shocked and mortified that ID wasn't required.

It seems pretty much common sense to require photo ID to vote.

[Recliner Pilot]

Years ago, the first time I voted, I pulled out my drivers license. Even though the lady at the table didn't know who I was (presumably... I certainly didn't know her) I found out that I didn't need ID to do so. I was shocked and mortified that ID wasn't required.

It seems pretty much common sense to require photo ID to vote.

Why do you hate poor people and minorities?

[penultimatestraw]

its a zero sum game you twit.

This is just like same sex marriage; them queers are stealing our weddings like minorities/the poor are stealing our votes

[Frank M]

Years ago, the first time I voted, I pulled out my drivers license. Even though the lady at the table didn't know who I was (presumably... I certainly didn't know her) I found out that I didn't need ID to do so. I was shocked and mortified that ID wasn't required.

It seems pretty much common sense to require photo ID to vote.

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

When did you become Republican?

[Recliner Pilot]

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

When did you become Republican?

The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the right to vote to every American citizen.

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

[Cruzer]

A general admission of the facts would be nice, as in admitting that both Democrats and Republicans are the same in this example instead of just demonizing Democrats' voting habits while conveniently omitting Republicans' propensity for the same behaviors...

Demonizing? Wow, you are really out there, and quite the drama queen. All I said was not all democrats think for themselves - and you agreed in principle. To my best guess you are up in arms bcoz I was not willing to play along with the stupid diversion/change the subject game that so many do here. We were talking about democrats bcoz worms brought it up, not me. Instead of continuing on topic you felt the need to run with Wonder's comment and go nuts bcoz we all of the sudden weren't addressing the new diversionary topic. I've seen the dog that chases its tail, in the end it catches it only to end up with ass in it's face. I make no apologies for not wanting to be part of that silliness. When asked later, in a serious note, I did address the republican angle and discussed it fully...... So again, I'm not really sure why it is you have taken your position - nor do I care. I was talking to worms in the first place, you jumped in. All I can say is if you don't like it, stay out.

[Frank M]

Demonizing? Wow, you are really out there, and quite the drama queen. All I said was not all democrats think for themselves - and you agreed in principle. To my best guess you are up in arms bcoz I was not willing to play along with the stupid diversion/change the subject game that so many do here. We were talking about democrats bcoz worms brought it up, not me. Instead of continuing on topic you felt the need to run with Wonder's comment and go nuts bcoz we all of the sudden weren't addressing the new diversionary topic. I've seen the dog that chases its tail, in the end it catches it only to end up with ass in it's face. I'm make no apologies for not wanting to be part of that silliness. When asked later, in a serious note, I did address the republican angle and discussed it fully...... So again, I'm not really sure why it is you have taken your position - nor do I care. I was talking to worms in the first place, you jumped in. All I can say is if you don't like it, stay out.

I call a dumbass a dumbass when I see it. Sorry you're butthurt by it.

Still finding it laughable that you are somehow shocked that you made a blanket statement about Democrats and were called out on it.

"Democrats suck! Don't call me on that statement, we're just having a discussion!"

[Frank M]

The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the right to vote to every American citizen.



http://www.usconstit...stnot.html#vote

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen who isn't a convicted felon ( ) to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

[Cruzer]

I call a dumbass a dumbass when I see it. Sorry you're butthurt by it.

Na, about the only thing laughable is your self-inflated value of your opinion. I'd venture to guess the list is short of those who really give a crap about it, myself included. Enjoy your life and weekend, hope it is a safe one.

[Frank M]

Na, about the only thing laughable is your self-inflated value of your opinion. I'd venture to guess the list is short of those who really give a crap about it, myself included. Enjoy your life and weekend, hope it is a safe one.

What, everyone here isn't impressed by me?

[BudBro]

Blacks are Democrats because Republicans don't generally care for minorities.

this reply isn't even undereducated...this is f&*kin retarded on every level. you clearly know nothing about the republicans role in the civil rights efforts of the late 50s and early 60s...and how it was the democrats that worked to stop the movement. blacks are democrats because they know as much about the civil rights movements as you do...absolutely nothing! if black people knew that al gore sr. and william fulbright hated blacks as much as they did, bill clinton and algore jr. would've never been heard from. robert byrd, an elected dem, was in the kkk (they don't like black people, in case you don't know what that group is). so, get off your high horse on the "defending the african americans" cause and wise up. if you cared, you'd educate yourself and you'd find out you are on the wrong side of the political spectrum on this one.

[BunnysBastatrds]

this reply isn't even undereducated...this is f&*kin retarded on every level. you clearly know nothing about the republicans role in the civil rights efforts of the late 50s and early 60s...and how it was the democrats that worked to stop the movement. blacks are democrats because they know as much about the civil rights movements as you do...absolutely nothing! if black people knew that al gore sr. and william fulbright hated blacks as much as they did, bill clinton and algore jr. would've never been heard from. robert byrd, an elected dem, was in the kkk (they don't like black people, in case you don't know what that group is). so, get off your high horse on the "defending the african americans" cause and wise up. if you cared, you'd educate yourself and you'd find out you are on the wrong side of the political spectrum on this one.

It's the souths influence that caused all of those southern democrats to vote the way they did. They couldn't help it. And the republicans that did vote for it really didn't mean it. They were from the north.

[jerryskids]

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

When did you become Republican?

In AZ it costs $12 to get one; I know because my 12 yr old daughter just got one last week. The list of acceptable forms of ID is large and would not be an issue for anyone eligible to vote. If you are over 21 it is valid until you are 65, so it is basically a one-time thing. Numerous ride services are available for the poor and elderly.

You have a problem with causation: the requirement for photo ID does not disenfranchise minorities, it disenfranchises lazy people who don't care enough to get an ID as a prerequisite to voting. It so happens that a disproportionate percentage of these are minorities. Minority leadership groups know this, which is why they fight such laws. People like you just drink their koolaid.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy!]

I guess you need edumacated on the meaning of the word Patriotism, Moron.



Son't see "irrational and unquestioning devotion" anywhere in there, Sport.

You are welcome for the education. I really should start charging you for these lessons.

This always pisses me off. Republicans always argue that "patriotism" means not criticizing your country, ever. Of course, they only argue this when their guy is in charge. During the bush administration, we weren't supposed to criticize our President in a time of war. That of course, ended as soon as Obama got elected.

Being critical of your country isn't unpatriotic... its a right and duty of an American. Blind patriotism with unquestioning devotion belongs to North Korea, The Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.

People who don't criticize don't care.

[WhiteWonder]

This always pisses me off. Republicans always argue that "patriotism" means not criticizing your country, ever. Of course, they only argue this when their guy is in charge. During the bush administration, we weren't supposed to criticize our President in a time of war. That of course, ended as soon as Obama got elected.

Being critical of your country isn't unpatriotic... its a right and duty of an American. Blind patriotism with unquestioning devotion belongs to North Korea, The Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany.

People who don't criticize don't care.

one of the smartest things said in this thread.

see, i knew there was a reason i didnt vote for you for the most toolish name

[IGotWorms]

this reply isn't even undereducated...this is f&*kin retarded on every level. you clearly know nothing about the republicans role in the civil rights efforts of the late 50s and early 60s...and how it was the democrats that worked to stop the movement. blacks are democrats because they know as much about the civil rights movements as you do...absolutely nothing! if black people knew that al gore sr. and william fulbright hated blacks as much as they did, bill clinton and algore jr. would've never been heard from. robert byrd, an elected dem, was in the kkk (they don't like black people, in case you don't know what that group is). so, get off your high horse on the "defending the african americans" cause and wise up. if you cared, you'd educate yourself and you'd find out you are on the wrong side of the political spectrum on this one.

Times change. Republicans used to be the party of civil rights. Now they are the party of hating immigrants, gays, minorities, etc., etc. They like rich white men and people who believe that someday they can become rich white men. That's about it.

[drobeski]

Years ago, the first time I voted, I pulled out my drivers license. Even though the lady at the table didn't know who I was (presumably... I certainly didn't know her) I found out that I didn't need ID to do so. I was shocked and mortified that ID wasn't required.

It seems pretty much common sense to require photo ID to vote.

Yup the only logical reason not to have to show id is to promote and enable voter fraud.
Anyone arguing differently is probably a cheater at most stuff in life.

[drobeski]

This always pisses me off. Republicans always argue that "patriotism" means not criticizing your country, ever. Of course, they only argue this when their guy is in charge. During the bush administration, we weren't supposed to criticize our President in a time of war. That of course, ended as soon as Obama got elected.

People who don't criticize don't care.

Correct, the msm stopped criticizing the president and the wars as soon as Obama took his oath.
Good job pointing out the blatant display of agenda driven hyposcrasy.

[Voltaire]

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

When did you become Republican?

I'm not denying them the right to vote. The local Secretary of State office is up Gratiot at Eleven Mile near the K-Mart. I'm happy to draw them a map. I don't know why somebody without an ID would expect to be allowed in in the first place. People who can't prove their identity shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Phurfur]

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen who isn't a convicted felon ( ) to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

Why don't we just let anyone from anywhere vote?

[Frank M]

I'm not denying them the right to vote. The local Secretary of State office is up Gratiot at Eleven Mile near the K-Mart. I'm happy to draw them a map. I don't know why somebody without an ID would expect to be allowed in in the first place. People who can't prove their identity shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The forms of identification already required are enough to negate the voter fraud that Republicans claim is widespread that doesn't actually exist.

[Frank M]

In AZ it costs $12 to get one; I know because my 12 yr old daughter just got one last week. The list of acceptable forms of ID is large and would not be an issue for anyone eligible to vote. If you are over 21 it is valid until you are 65, so it is basically a one-time thing. Numerous ride services are available for the poor and elderly.

You have a problem with causation: the requirement for photo ID does not disenfranchise minorities, it disenfranchises lazy people who don't care enough to get an ID as a prerequisite to voting. It so happens that a disproportionate percentage of these are minorities. Minority leadership groups know this, which is why they fight such laws. People like you just drink their koolaid.

And you drink the koolaid of those saying that a photo ID would cut down on voter fraud.

There are several acceptable forms of identification that one must produce to be able to vote. Narrowing it to one form that one group has less of than another, and for no good reason, is disenfranchisement.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy!]

one of the smartest things said in this thread.

see, i knew there was a reason i didnt vote for you for the most toolish name

Thanks.

My name does suck though. I wish I could change it. I had lurked here for years at the mange bored before I even noticed there was a geek bored, then I came up with a name on the fly.

At the time, my loyalties were the Bears (the team I had chosen at random when I was a little kid (prolly during the 85 season) since we had no team here) the Titans (since we had gotten them while I was in college, and I had become a big fan during the McNair-George years.) and the bucs (I lived in Tampa at the time, and they had just won the SB, I was into them.) These days I don't care about the bears or bucs anymore.

But we can't change names, so I'm stuck with it.

[Recliner Pilot]

So you would deny the Constitutional right of every American citizen who isn't a convicted felon ( ) to vote to those that don't have a photo ID?

1. The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the "right to vote" to anyone. I guess you didn't bother to read my link.

2. No proposal I've seen would deny anyone the "right to vote" if they don't have an ID. Anyone who wishes to vote would have every opportunity to get an ID. You are like a broken record with your Demwit talking points.

[Recliner Pilot]

This always pisses me off. Republicans always argue that "patriotism" means not criticizing your country, ever.

Which Republican here said "Patriotism means not criticizing your country, ever"? I assume since you quoted me you are making the claim I've said that.

Another lie by you.

[MDC]

Welchy Pilot prays every night for another 9/11.

Fortunately Obummer kills terrorists, unlike the last guy who kisses them.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy!]

1. The Constitution doesn't explicitly give the "right to vote" to anyone. I guess you didn't bother to read my link.

Yes, actually, it does.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commence with some semantic bullshiot argument about how you didn't get pwned.

[Recliner Pilot]

Yes, actually, it does.









Commence with some semantic bullshiot argument about how you didn't get pwned.

I guess I need to link this up once again, as it directly addresses the 26th Amendment. There is a reason I used the word "explicitly" in my posts. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

[KSB2424]

Count me in with Voltaire on this one, the first time I went to vote and they didn't ask for any type of ID I too was shocked. It just seemed weird. It's like one big free for all.

[MedStudent]

I was a bit surprised that they don't make you show an id when you vote as well. Where I vote, they have a signature on file and they make you sign something and then they verify your signature.

[Recliner Pilot]

Count me in with Voltaire on this one, the first time I went to vote and they didn't ask for any type of ID I too was shocked. It just seemed weird. It's like one big free for all.

Seems like a no-brainer. Yet here you have Frank M regurgitating Demwit talking points about it disenfranchising minorities despite the link he brought to prove that showing over 90% of all minorities already have a valid DL or photo ID.

He keeps ignoring the facts to puke up that BS line over, and over.

[Frank M]

Seems like a no-brainer. Yet here you have Frank M regurgitating Demwit talking points about it disenfranchising minorities despite the link he brought to prove that showing over 90% of all minorities already have a valid DL or photo ID.

He keeps ignoring the facts to puke up that BS line over, and over.

Don't know what I'm ignoring, as my point is not that most minorities have a valid ID. My point is that the voter fraud that Republicans are convinced will be eradicated by showing a photo ID of is non-existent, making the requirement unnecessary. Everyone who registers to vote must prove their identity already, so making a rule that essentially targets a group of people and makes it more difficult for them to exercise their basic fundamental rights as Americans is disenfranchisement.

[Recliner Pilot]

Don't know what I'm ignoring, as my point is not that most minorities have a valid ID. My point is that the voter fraud that Republicans are convinced will be eradicated by showing a photo ID of is non-existent, making the requirement unnecessary. Everyone who registers to vote must prove their identity already, so making a rule that essentially targets a group of people and makes it more difficult for them to exercise their basic fundamental rights as Americans is disenfranchisement.

Really?

So how does it disenfranchise them to ask them to bring the same ID with them when they vote? And exactly how is the requirement that everyone show ID "targeting" a specific group? Dayum, you really can't think for yourself, can you?

[Frank M]

Really?

So how does it disenfranchise them to ask them to bring the same ID with them when they vote? And exactly how is the requirement that everyone show ID "targeting" a specific group? Dayum, you really can't think for yourself, can you?

It's targeting the group that has been shown to have a lesser percentage of people with valid photo IDs, ie., minorities. It doesn't matter that they should have a higher percentage of ID holders, or that it's easy to get an ID, or that a high percentage already does have an ID, or that you or Voltaire or anybody thinks that they should show an ID, what matters is that they consistently have a lower level of ID holders, and the law targets that for no good reason.

You do have to confirm your signature where I vote. If you registered to vote, you confirmed your identity in one of several ways, you signed the registration form, and they check it against your signature on the day you vote.

Can someone please explain the massive voter fraud that will be neutralized by showing a photo ID on the day you vote that confirming your signature will not? Are there lots of people coming to the polls faking other peoples' signature so they can vote again?

All I hear is a bunch of guys saying "Well, it seems like a reasonable thing to ask for."

[Recliner Pilot]

If you registered to vote, you confirmed your identity in one of several ways

How?

[Herbivore]

I guess I need to link this up once again, as it directly addresses the 26th Amendment. There is a reason I used the word "explicitly" in my posts. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?




http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

cause you're a doosh

[DankNuggs]

What, everyone here isn't impressed by me?

new sig lol

[Recliner Pilot]

cause you're a doosh

.....or that werds mean things.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy!]

I guess I need to link this up once again, as it directly addresses the 26th Amendment. There is a reason I used the word "explicitly" in my posts. Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it?




http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

Yes, it does. The words "right to vote" was mentioned in every single one of the amendments I quoted. the 26th says..

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

By your logic, the right to bear arms doesn't exist either, since it uses the exact same "shall not be abridged" language.

But keep flailing. Never admit you got caught making shiot up and don't know what the fock you are talking about.