|
|
On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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. ![[image loading]](http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/488190_10151006368999205_1067941157_n.jpg) 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.
Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
For all the pacifists out there saying war is bad, killing is bad, violence is bad, etc. - yeah, that's a given.
War can be senseless. It can be evil. It pits humanity against humanity. It is murder. It is torture. Yet presently and historically, it has existed in every corner of the world.
Whether a war is validated through its intentions or not (WW2 vs. Iraq), whether we feel our rights are being protected or not (American Revolutionary War vs. Vietnam), you have to keep in mind: we, here today, are given the leisure of putting ourselves on pedestals of peace because there have been, and still are, others who are willing to do what we, to our very core, may oppose. And for that reason alone is it a stretch to say that these soldiers do not, at the very least, deserve our gratitude? Our respect?
Not every soldier may have agreed with the premise of war, especially the Iraq war. But when they enlisted they realized that they were giving their lives away for the country - perhaps not physically as in death, but by relinquishing autonomy over their own body. That soldier who had no choice but to shoot that kid with the AK47... does he not deserve our sympathy? Our thanks, for knowing beforehand that he may have to perform actions that may torment him through eternity, yet obliging anyway?
To be a soldier is much more than just being willing to kill. It is being willing to die, and to carry the sins of an entire country, for no more than a simple command. For no more than scraps of money.
How many of us could do that?
|
On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional.
So if they make it free then its fine?
|
On August 19 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional. So if they make it free then its fine?
Yes. (and, at least in Wisconsin, the state will pay for it through all our other programs, so there is no reason they can't just make it free).
|
I had to spend $1 worth of gas to drive to my voting location.
OMFG POLL TAX!
|
On August 19 2012 04:51 Zaqwert wrote:
I had to spend $1 worth of gas to drive to my voting location.
OMFG POLL TAX!
Then walk, bike, hitch hike, etc.
No one is forcing you to drive, they are forcing you to present ID though. I think ID's should be required but I think they should also be available for free if you're gonna use it to vote.
Live in WI and the guy above me is correct. When they did it was bad, the timing right before an election and all but you can get one for free if you simply ask for one. Democrat if it means anything.
|
On August 19 2012 04:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional. So if they make it free then its fine? Yes. (and, at least in Wisconsin, the state will pay for it through all our other programs, so there is no reason they can't just make it free).
That sounds fair. Have voter ID but don't put it in place right before an election and make it free.
|
On August 19 2012 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:51 BluePanther wrote:On August 19 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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:[quote] 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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional. So if they make it free then its fine? Yes. (and, at least in Wisconsin, the state will pay for it through all our other programs, so there is no reason they can't just make it free). That sounds fair. Have voter ID but don't put it in place right before an election and make it free.
Nobody is going to propose voter ID laws under those conditions though because then there's no reason to.
|
On August 19 2012 04:37 Souma wrote:
we, here today, are given the leisure of putting ourselves on pedestals of peace because there have been, and still are, others who are willing to do what we, to our very core, may oppose.
We have the leisure of peace because we have people who make war? That's possible, but it's a massive assumption.
On August 19 2012 05:39 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 04:51 BluePanther wrote:On August 19 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 00:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 00:38 DoubleReed wrote:On August 19 2012 00:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional. So if they make it free then its fine? Yes. (and, at least in Wisconsin, the state will pay for it through all our other programs, so there is no reason they can't just make it free). That sounds fair. Have voter ID but don't put it in place right before an election and make it free. Nobody is going to propose voter ID laws under those conditions though because then there's no reason to.
There's probably one or two people who support voter ID laws for reasons other than voter suppression.
|
On August 19 2012 05:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:51 BluePanther wrote:On August 19 2012 04:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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:[quote] 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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional. So if they make it free then its fine? Yes. (and, at least in Wisconsin, the state will pay for it through all our other programs, so there is no reason they can't just make it free). That sounds fair. Have voter ID but don't put it in place right before an election and make it free.
Ideally, it wouldn't just be free, but extremely easy to obtain as well. But that would cost the government money, and you know how Republicans feel about spending government money.
|
On August 19 2012 03:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 03:22 darthfoley 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. 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.
I replied to you in detail and addressed both the number of cases of fraud and the Ohio voting hours controversy. Do reply to my post.
|
NYTimes article:
The likelihood that they would stand by that irresponsible pledge after the election is close to zero. And the likelihood that they would be better able than Democrats to preserve Medicare for the future (through a risky voucher system that may not work well for many beneficiaries) is not much better. THE ALLEGED “RAID ON MEDICARE” A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-
income people who are currently uninsured. “So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you,” the ad warns.
What the Republicans fail to say is that the budget resolutions crafted by Paul Ryan and approved by the Republican-controlled House retained virtually the same cut in Medicare.
In reality, the $716 billion is not a “cut” in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.
One big chunk of money will be saved by reducing unjustifiably high subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that enroll many beneficiaries at a higher average cost than traditional Medicare. Another will come from reducing the annual increases in federal reimbursements to health care providers — like hospitals, nursing homes and home health agencies — to force the notoriously inefficient system to find ways to improve productivity.
And a further chunk will come from fees or taxes imposed on drug makers, device makers and insurers — fees that they can surely afford since expanded coverage for the uninsured will increase their markets and their revenues.
NO HARM TO SENIORS The Republicans imply that the $716 billion in cuts will harm older Americans, but almost none of the savings come from reducing the benefits available for people already on Medicare. But if Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan were able to repeal the reform law, as they have pledged to do, that would drive up costs for many seniors — namely those with high prescription drug costs, who are already receiving subsidies under the reform law, and those who are receiving preventive services, like colonoscopies, mammograms and immunizations, with no cost sharing.
Mr. Romney argued on Friday that the $716 billion in cuts will harm beneficiaries because those who get discounts or extra benefits in the heavily subsidized Medicare Advantage plans will lose them and because reduced payments to hospitals and other providers could cause some providers to stop accepting Medicare patients.
If he thinks that will be a major problem, Mr. Romney should leave the reform law in place: it has many provisions designed to make the delivery of health care more efficient and cheaper, so that hospitals and others will be better able to survive on smaller payments.
Source
|
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.
The law goes to great lengths to make sure anyone can vote. If you don't have ID, you can still vote. You cast provisional ballot that is then counted once you get your ID which they are making very easy to get.
also,
On Monday, Nevada officials charged Acorn, its regional director and its Las Vegas field director with submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms last year. Larry Lomax, the registrar of voters in Las Vegas, says he believes 48% of Acorn's forms "are clearly fraudulent." On Thursday, prosecutors in Pittsburgh, Pa., also charged seven Acorn employees with filing hundreds of fraudulent voter registrations before last year's general election.
Fred Voight, deputy election commissioner in Philadelphia, protested after Acorn (according to the registrar of voters and his own investigation) submitted at least 1,500 fraudulent registrations last fall. "This has been going on for a number of years," he told CNN in October. St. Louis Democrat Matthew Potter, the city's deputy elections director, had similar complaints.
Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution. In the 2008 election, Acorn's practices led to investigations, some ongoing, in 14 other states.
Source
|
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.
Its a good thing there aren't more ppl like you because 1 big jerk could conquer the world with simply the threat of violence and we'd all be slaves. :\
War is bad. Tyrany is also bad. Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany.
Not all wars are right. But some are.
|
On August 19 2012 04:22 Emokes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 19 2012 02:56 DoubleReed wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Asking the rest to spend $10 so they are able to vote is a poll tax and if you did not know a poll tax is unconstitutional. It's not a poll tax. This has already been taken to the SC.
|
On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany.
Can you give an example?
|
On August 19 2012 04:37 Souma wrote:
you have to keep in mind: we, here today, are given the leisure of putting ourselves on pedestals of peace because there have been, and still are, others who are willing to do what we, to our very core, may oppose. And for that reason alone is it a stretch to say that these soldiers do not, at the very least, deserve our gratitude? Our respect?
Couldn't have said it better.
|
On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example?
I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something
EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that.
|
On August 19 2012 10:47 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 10:45 sam!zdat wrote:On August 19 2012 10:39 Savio wrote:
Sometimes a short war leads to centuries of prosperity without tyrany. Can you give an example? I'm glad we aren't all Nazis truthfully. Thats kind of nice. Might be worth something EDIT: Although, maybe if we had appeased Hitler instead, he would have just left us alone...I wonder why no one thought of that.
You said centuries of prosperity without tyranny though.. what's the longest mankind on earth has gone without conflict, a few days?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
