|
|
If you really wanted to enact voter ID laws and not just suppress the vote, you would enact the laws in an off-year election (2011,2013, etc) where you actually have a lot more time to issue out free voter IDs to EVERY citizen.
Let's face it, if there's really any fraud of significance that is going to occur, it's going to happen with electronic voting machines that have no paper trail.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
I've been following this thread for a while, and although there have been many points I've disagreed with or even scoffed at from both sides, there has been no comment that has infuriated me as much as this one. Let me tell you the biggest difference between you and any soldier: you would die protecting your own rights, but soldiers... they die protecting the rights of others. How dare you express such insolence towards those who have sacrificed everything for us.
|
On August 18 2012 18:39 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
I've been following this thread for a while, and although there have been many points I've disagreed with or even scoffed at from both sides, there has been no comment that has infuriated me as much as this one. Let me tell you the biggest difference between you and any soldier: you would die protecting your own rights, but soldiers... they die protecting the rights of others. How dare you express such insolence towards those who have sacrificed everything for us.
You mean those who have sacrificed everything for the military-industrial complex which guides national policy towards senseless wars?
|
On August 18 2012 20:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 18:39 Souma wrote:On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
I've been following this thread for a while, and although there have been many points I've disagreed with or even scoffed at from both sides, there has been no comment that has infuriated me as much as this one. Let me tell you the biggest difference between you and any soldier: you would die protecting your own rights, but soldiers... they die protecting the rights of others. How dare you express such insolence towards those who have sacrificed everything for us. You mean those who have sacrificed everything for the military-industrial complex which guides national policy towards senseless wars?
Tell me about trying to be edgy on the internet, I'm really interested!
To How many disabled servicemen have you given this amazing insight?
|
On August 18 2012 20:47 Budmandude wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:11 sunprince wrote:On August 18 2012 18:39 Souma wrote:On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:
Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
I've been following this thread for a while, and although there have been many points I've disagreed with or even scoffed at from both sides, there has been no comment that has infuriated me as much as this one. Let me tell you the biggest difference between you and any soldier: you would die protecting your own rights, but soldiers... they die protecting the rights of others. How dare you express such insolence towards those who have sacrificed everything for us. You mean those who have sacrificed everything for the military-industrial complex which guides national policy towards senseless wars? Tell me about trying to be edgy on the internet, I'm really interested! To How many disabled servicemen have you given this amazing insight?
Whether or not he's said this to a disabled servicemen doesn't invalidate his opinion.
|
I feel like this is going nowhere fast. I respect servicemen who choose to fight for my country but It doesn't mean the wars we fight are validated all of a sudden cause people died in them.
I don't think my freedom was defended by those that died in Vietnam or Iraq though sorry to say, I just don't buy the whole my freedom being defended in these conflicts. People I care about fought in both wars.. I can see ww 2 cause there was an attack on our soil etc etc.
Dismissing all soldiers as idiots isn't the way to go about condemning war and violence though I understand your anti war ideals I too hate war, the soldiers don't make the orders they obey them(they don't have a choice once their committed). Many are committed not cause they like the current war but because it seemed like a good career choice because of financial situation and they pay for college or it was seen during a time of peace as a way to travel and see new places and learn new skills. Of course some soldiers agree with the wars and that's their opinion and I don't think their service is of any less value.
Fuck war and violence
|
On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about.
So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws.
Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbers
You don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win.
|
On August 18 2012 20:57 BlueBird. wrote:
I feel like this is going nowhere fast. I respect servicemen who choose to fight for my country but It doesn't mean the wars we fight are validated all of a sudden cause people died in them.
I don't think my freedom was defended by those that died in Vietnam or Iraq though sorry to say, I just don't buy the whole my freedom being defended in these conflicts. People I care about fought in both wars.. I can see ww 2 cause there was an attack on our soil etc etc.
Dismissing all soldiers as idiots isn't the way to go about condemning war and violence though I understand your anti war ideals I too hate war, the soldiers don't make the orders they obey them(they don't have a choice once their committed). Many are committed not cause they like the current war but because it seemed like a good career choice because of financial situation and they pay for college or it was seen during a time of peace as a way to travel and see new places and learn new skills. Of course some soldiers agree with the wars and that's their opinion and I don't think their service is of any less value.
Fuck war and violence
If you're entirely against violence, the rational consequence would be to be against soldiers. Violence is an inherent part of a soldiers job no matter whether they are recieving good orders or bad. How can you consider a soldier a value when you are completely against violence? Either you are against the use of violence even when it is blatantly in self-defense, or you need to choose your words more carefully. Violence is good when it is used to protect the innocent.
I want to become a soldier, because, it, despite my countries terrible foreign policy, is still a noble profession. There might come a day when it is morally imperative for soldiers to go on strike, but that day has not yet come. For now, being a soldier of my country is still the embodiment of the phrase, "Live Free or Die" even they are sent to fight altrustic non-sense wars. The wars they fight do not actually protect freedom, but we still need them as a shield for our freedom and to use if we finally come to our senses and declare war with the countries that actually threaten us.
|
On August 18 2012 14:54 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 14:38 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 14:21 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:08 1Eris1 wrote:On August 18 2012 13:49 sam!zdat wrote:On August 18 2012 13:45 coverpunch wrote:On August 18 2012 13:37 DoubleReed wrote:
Think about it, honestly. The conservative right is the one blaming rape victims, coming up with weird shaming abortion laws, capital punishment, absurdly harsh criminal sentencing rules, anti-immigration policies, resisting domestic abuse laws, and warhawk-style interventionism. Obviously economically we have the anti-poor stuff. And even in their personal lives we see them being the ones that favor things like corporal punishment and harsher deterrent attitudes. I can't think of a single policy that's "conservative" that isn't Blaming the Victim or Deterrents. Can you? All-volunteer military. Boom. Is this a "conservative" position? Only crazies like me want to reinstate mandatory service, not democrats Actually, during the Bush administration they were a few Democratic legislators who did try to restore the draft, or at least increase the scope of the selective service. They were unsucessful of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act Yea, but everyone knows that was just bullshit to scare people that "omg the war is bad they're going to draft people" thing. It's not like the draft doesn't exist. It's just not instated at the moment. Ehh, you should read up the architect of the bill, Charles Rangel. He doesn't just believe in the draft, he believes that every american citizen should be required to spend two years in compulsionary "national service". See, to me that sounds like a fantastic idea. Why not? For all your talk of Marxism you sure are showing a remarking similarity to the Leninists you supposedly hate. Here's a reason, government derives from the people, not the other way around. If some idiot wants to go die for his country, fine by me, but I'd sooner see the USA in all it's glory come crashing down before I'm forced to give my life for it.
Those "idiots" are mostly just people trying to earn a meager living. They take the most dangerous type of job imaginable for a very small wage and a chance at cheaper education when they get home.
Disgusting that you call them idiots. Revolting.
|
On August 18 2012 08:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 07:57 Leporello wrote:On August 18 2012 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
Easy on the simple rhetoric. If you feel like calling someone out do so by calling out the policies they support or you're risking a ban (this message brought to you by the guy who recently got banned for calling a troll who got banned stupid or something)
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing. And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). But we're obviously two very different people politically. I have enough longtime Republican friends to know that at some point, "simple rhetoric" is all you can really engage in. No real offense meant, it's more a friendly acknowledgment. I didn't respond to the majority of your post because it was discussing ideas that I don't really hold and didn't really feel like speaking to. It also misconstrued and took out of context the original point that I was making. That's vague. What idea was it addressing that you don't hold, specifically? Are you strictly pro-life, even in cases of rape? Because that was not my understanding. This is, in fact, the point: you don't seem to want to defend your own position on this matter. Your point, it seemed to me, was you get offended by how some Democrats approach the debate, speaking of women who were raped. But it seems that this "offense" you take is just a great way of avoiding actually clarifying your position on the matter. I could ask you right now, do you think a fetus conceived of rape is a human being, and thus deserving of full protection? Would I get an answer? Or does the question "offend" you? As I am pretty sure that I have said previously in this thread (or the republican nominations thread), I don't really have a position on abortion. I tend to stray pro-life because I find the use of abortion merely to cover up for either a failure in birth control or a failure to use birth control to be repugnant. I also recognize that the right to an abortion is settled law, so the debate is basically over (other than funding issues and procedural/timing issues). Because of this, abortion rights are so low on my list of political priorities that I don't really care that much in terms of what legislation that a candidate proposes. I don't object to pro-choice politicians just because they are pro-choice. In the circumstance of rape, I don't really have a problem with a woman getting an abortion.
Didn't answer the question at all. "Low on your priorities" it may be, but earlier you declared that the debate was capable of offending you. You still have an opinion on the humanity of a fetus. An opinion you compromise for political convenience.
Why not compromise more and just be pro-choice?
On August 18 2012 09:26 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 06:33 Leporello wrote:
I don't really mean offense. Last time I addressed xDaunt specifically, in a serious manner, he responded by quoting only about 5% of my post. No point engaging someone who is going to cherry pick your words to such a degree, while ignoring the main point you're addressing.
And I don't really mind much. I think he chose to ignore me because being halfway pro-life like he and so many Republicans are is a very bizarre and inconsistent stance to have (they say a fetus is an innocent human being, but they're willing to kill them, innocent and human they may be, if they're conceived and reside in the womb of a woman who was raped...). Hey look I am only quoting part of your post too! Am I evil or do I just want to address one point and tl;dr the rest? Anyway, I always enjoy how conservatives are supposedly people who only view the world in black and white and don't really care about people and their lives which is nice for demagoguery against those who don't want the rape/incest exception for abortion and then those who decide to accept the exception get to be labelled inconsistent so it's ad hominem all around! Conservatives understand there are times when all the choices are bad.
The post you're responding to is basically addressing two different topics. Whereas xDaunt really snipped one sentence out of a post that was addressing one issue. I don't even mean to make anything out of it, I was just explaining myself for making a joke.
Conservatives don't see things black and white. They simply talk in absolutes that they can't even adhere to themselves. They want to tell us fetuses are humans, but they won't protest their slaughter if the circumstances are messy enough. If you talk about assault rifle gun control, they say the 2nd Amendment, written in the late 1700's, promises us assault rifles. But I never hear them protest over government banning people from buying high-explosive howitzer cannons. Their rhetoric on social issues is very black-and-white, to the point that they're hypocrites.
|
On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win.
Honest question, how can Penn know there is no fraud if it isn't something they have investigated at all?
|
On August 19 2012 00:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win. Honest question, how can Penn know there is no fraud if it isn't something they have investigated at all?
Okay, so they have zero evidence that voter fraud is taking place and zero evidence that voter fraud will occur without Voter ID laws in place. They do have significant evidence that Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legitimate voters. These are all things that proponents of Voter ID laws admit completely.
So why are they doing it? Well State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai openly said “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done.” This is absolutely brazen, and still people are partisan enough to be okay with it.
![[image loading]](http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488190_10151006368999205_1067941157_n.jpg)
|
On August 19 2012 00:38 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 00:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win. Honest question, how can Penn know there is no fraud if it isn't something they have investigated at all? Okay, so they have zero evidence that voter fraud is taking place and zero evidence that voter fraud will occur without Voter ID laws in place. They do have significant evidence that Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legitimate voters. These are all things that proponents of Voter ID laws admit completely. So why are they doing it? Well State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai openly said “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done.” This is absolutely brazen, and still people are partisan enough to be okay with it.
It seems like a bad idea to change the law a few months before an election. But asking for an ID before voting, in general, seems like a good idea (IMO). And $10 isn't too bad. If they could print them out on the spot (removes 30 day window) it would be a good deal overall. I mean, everyone should have a picture ID anyways and not asking for an ID seems like a pretty big security hole regardless of how much it is being exploited.
Still, seems like the issue is very small potatoes compared to gerrymandering.
Edit: Don't you need a picture ID to get the gun license? Also there are sales and excise taxes on the guns themselves. Not that it changes anything about voter ID, but comparing voter ID cost to gun licenses isn't very fair.
|
I noticed a lot of talk of soldiers and war, I want to add my two cents. Both my parents were in the military, I have 2 aunts and an uncle in the military, my half brother is in the military, my grandfather was and some cousins were. I also have a few friends I met online who served in the military.
For all of them, they went into the military as a last resort in life because they had no other option to sustain themselves, and they signed up to fight and possibly kill people and die on the whim of some douchebag higher up in the ranks who may or may not be getting some financial gain out of the conflict.
But for all their sacrifice, I'd respect each and every one of them infinitely more if they sucked it up and left the military. War is essentially mass murder, and to aid in any way to that is to be an accomplice. Period. I would personally rather have all my rights stripped away and be locked in jail than be forced to kill or help kill other humans. It's sickening. It's wrong. I don't know how they live with themselves.
|
On August 19 2012 00:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 00:38 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 00:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win. Honest question, how can Penn know there is no fraud if it isn't something they have investigated at all? Okay, so they have zero evidence that voter fraud is taking place and zero evidence that voter fraud will occur without Voter ID laws in place. They do have significant evidence that Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legitimate voters. These are all things that proponents of Voter ID laws admit completely. So why are they doing it? Well State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai openly said “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done.” This is absolutely brazen, and still people are partisan enough to be okay with it. It seems like a bad idea to change the law a few months before an election. But asking for an ID before voting, in general, seems like a good idea (IMO). And $10 isn't too bad. If they could print them out on the spot (removes 30 day window) it would be a good deal overall. I mean, everyone should have a picture ID anyways and not asking for an ID seems like a pretty big security hole regardless of how much it is being exploited. Still, seems like the issue is very small potatoes compared to gerrymandering. Edit: Don't you need a picture ID to get the gun license? Also there are sales and excise taxes on the guns themselves. Not that it changes anything about voter ID, but comparing voter ID cost to gun licenses isn't very fair.
So I don't actually know what you mean by it "seems like a good idea." I'm trying to show you why it's a bad idea. I don't care what seems true, I care what is true.
Saying that "everyone should have a picture ID anyways" is fine. Then we should have a large campaign to get everyone IDs and only when we're sure that people aren't disenfranchised should we make laws requiring Voter ID. But not bloody well until.
Most Photo IDs people use are Driver's Licenses. However, there are lots of people in cities, old people, young people, and such where driving isn't necessary at all and having a driver's license isn't necessary at all. Getting a State ID does take time and effort (especially if you don't drive, after all), so yes there are plenty of people who will be disenfranchised by this law.
|
On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win.
thank you for telling xDaunt how it is, you're doing us all a favor.
seriously if you don't believe these ID laws are to quell minorities/poor votes aka obama votes then you're delusional.
|
On August 19 2012 03:22 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win. thank you for telling xDaunt how it is, you're doing us all a favor. seriously if you don't believe these ID laws are to quell minorities/poor votes aka obama votes then you're delusional.
Sorry, but the Supreme Court has already spoken on this and found these laws to be appropriate and constitutional. In so doing, the Court was very clear on the point that photo ID is easy to get.
I freely admit that the voter ID laws disproportionately affect Obama voters, but quite frankly, that's just how it is.
|
On August 19 2012 01:36 Meta wrote:
I noticed a lot of talk of soldiers and war, I want to add my two cents. Both my parents were in the military, I have 2 aunts and an uncle in the military, my half brother is in the military, my grandfather was and some cousins were. I also have a few friends I met online who served in the military.
For all of them, they went into the military as a last resort in life because they had no other option to sustain themselves, and they signed up to fight and possibly kill people and die on the whim of some douchebag higher up in the ranks who may or may not be getting some financial gain out of the conflict.
But for all their sacrifice, I'd respect each and every one of them infinitely more if they sucked it up and left the military. War is essentially mass murder, and to aid in any way to that is to be an accomplice. Period. I would personally rather have all my rights stripped away and be locked in jail than be forced to kill or help kill other humans. It's sickening. It's wrong. I don't know how they live with themselves.
Wow really? You would give up your life for people you don't even know? Thats surprising. I love your assumption that if you are in the military you are automatically responsible for the people the military kills. What if you are the guy who prevents a disaster from occuring due to miscommunication or saves a wounded civilian. I mean crist I live a pretty sheltered existence but I could live with myself being in the military lol. Maybe its because I know people in the military and they are some of the best individuals I know.
|
On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 00:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 00:38 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 00:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 18 2012 21:51 DoubleReed wrote:On August 18 2012 14:48 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 14:32 kwizach wrote:On August 18 2012 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2012 05:51 Risen wrote:
On topic to xdaunt: thoughts on the fairly obvious voter blocking efforts by republicans recently? For it? Against it? Yet another reason I find my own party impossible to support... Bunch of weaklings who can't run on the basis of policy, they have to cheat to win. What voter blocking efforts? I hope you're not talking about voter ID laws. What problem are the voter ID laws supposed to be addressing? The ~10 cases of individual fraud nationwide since 2000? And how about the move in Ohio by Republicans to limit voting time in Democratic-leaning districts, while keeping the same voting hours for Republican-leaning districts? Do you somehow manage to not see a little problem with that? Christ, you're unbelievable. Voter fraud is far more rampant than that. In fact, it's so bad that none other than Justice John Paul Stephens wrote that the US has a long history of voter fraud when declaring in a majority opinion that voter ID laws are Constitutional. It's such a butt-simple solution to prevent all sorts of potential mischief that there is no good reason not to have it other than to *GASP* promote voter fraud. Every citizen has easy access to photo ID. If they are incapable of bringing it to the polls or getting one, then they really must be too stupid to vote anyway. In fact, all of you liberals who believe that requiring voter ID "disenfranchises minorities" should pause for a moment and think about what you're saying. You're arguing that minorities are so stupid and inferior to whites that they're prone to being disenfranchised by voter ID laws. Nice work. I'd say that there's more than just a whiff of racism there. But I digress.... As for Ohio, I have no idea what you're talking about. So... by rampant you mean the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has openly admitted that there have be zero investigations into voter fraud? Neither party is aware of an incidents of voter fraud in the state? And that Voter ID laws have the potential to suppress more than a million voters in Pennsylvania? And these are the numbers provided by the people who are supporting Voter ID laws. Saying that everybody has easy access to photo ID is demonstrably false. Not that you ever let facts get in the way of your magical fairy tale. http://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/pennsylvanias-voter-id-numbersYou don't give a shit about disenfranchising voters, because it might make your guy win. Honest question, how can Penn know there is no fraud if it isn't something they have investigated at all? Okay, so they have zero evidence that voter fraud is taking place and zero evidence that voter fraud will occur without Voter ID laws in place. They do have significant evidence that Voter ID laws will disenfranchise legitimate voters. These are all things that proponents of Voter ID laws admit completely. So why are they doing it? Well State House Majority Leader Mike Turzai openly said “Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done.” This is absolutely brazen, and still people are partisan enough to be okay with it. It seems like a bad idea to change the law a few months before an election. But asking for an ID before voting, in general, seems like a good idea (IMO). And $10 isn't too bad. If they could print them out on the spot (removes 30 day window) it would be a good deal overall. I mean, everyone should have a picture ID anyways and not asking for an ID seems like a pretty big security hole regardless of how much it is being exploited. Still, seems like the issue is very small potatoes compared to gerrymandering. Edit: Don't you need a picture ID to get the gun license? Also there are sales and excise taxes on the guns themselves. Not that it changes anything about voter ID, but comparing voter ID cost to gun licenses isn't very fair. So I don't actually know what you mean by it "seems like a good idea." I'm trying to show you why it's a bad idea. I don't care what seems true, I care what is true. Saying that "everyone should have a picture ID anyways" is fine. Then we should have a large campaign to get everyone IDs and only when we're sure that people aren't disenfranchised should we make laws requiring Voter ID. But not bloody well until. Most Photo IDs people use are Driver's Licenses. However, there are lots of people in cities, old people, young people, and such where driving isn't necessary at all and having a driver's license isn't necessary at all. Getting a State ID does take time and effort (especially if you don't drive, after all), so yes there are plenty of people who will be disenfranchised by this law.
Well what IS true? The ACLU article says that they haven't found in-person voter fraud, but it also says that it hasn't really been investigated either. Fraud is, by its nature, hidden. And voting, by its nature, leaves a scant paper trail. So, its entirely possible that fraud is there and just hasn't been detected for lack of trying and lack of evidence.
And that's not just idle speculation either. Voter fraud has been found - just not in-person fraud. Moreover it is typical for fraud to exist for years, undetected, before it is found.
Yes requiring and ID will require effort and time, but so does registering to vote and the act of voting itself. The VAST majority of people have photo IDs already. Asking the rest to spend $10 to get one isn't a huge burden.
|
On August 18 2012 22:25 OsoVega wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 20:57 BlueBird. wrote:
I feel like this is going nowhere fast. I respect servicemen who choose to fight for my country but It doesn't mean the wars we fight are validated all of a sudden cause people died in them.
I don't think my freedom was defended by those that died in Vietnam or Iraq though sorry to say, I just don't buy the whole my freedom being defended in these conflicts. People I care about fought in both wars.. I can see ww 2 cause there was an attack on our soil etc etc.
Dismissing all soldiers as idiots isn't the way to go about condemning war and violence though I understand your anti war ideals I too hate war, the soldiers don't make the orders they obey them(they don't have a choice once their committed). Many are committed not cause they like the current war but because it seemed like a good career choice because of financial situation and they pay for college or it was seen during a time of peace as a way to travel and see new places and learn new skills. Of course some soldiers agree with the wars and that's their opinion and I don't think their service is of any less value.
Fuck war and violence I want to become a soldier, because, it, despite my countries terrible foreign policy, is still a noble profession. There might come a day when it is morally imperative for soldiers to go on strike, but that day has not yet come. For now, being a soldier of my country is still the embodiment of the phrase, "Live Free or Die" even they are sent to fight altrustic non-sense wars. The wars they fight do not actually protect freedom, but we still need them as a shield for our freedom and to use if we finally come to our senses and declare war with the countries that actually threaten us.
Edit: Oops I think I misunderstood your post. Nevermind.
Although I will add that there are a lot of people who argue the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have only exacerbated terrorism and made the problems worse; so maybe don't be so certain when you say its still a noble profession.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
