Damn illegal alien... Catholic.. nuns... no vote for you!
-
Zimbabwe + America
-
And how would you prove that you, the man at the polling station, is in fact the man that did those hours community service?
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
A government-issued, mandatory photo-ID :shrug: It's not me who got a problem with that.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
peterchen wrote:
First, why put burden of proof on the voter? "Innocent until proven guilty" is one of the few things that clearly distinguishes western civilizations from commie/rogue dictatorships.
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
peterchen wrote:
Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government. It's somewhat like "sure we don't discriminate against girls, but if you want to play, you must be a boy".
Nope. It's more like "we don't discriminate against citizens registered to vote but to register to vote you must be a citizen." Not nearly as cute, but a lot more accurate.
peterchen wrote:
Third, I'm all for making voting a clear privilege. Say, weight votes by hours of community service done last year.
Me, too. Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
Fair enough. However, even the most desperate countries organize Voter identification themselves - even if it's just marking their fingers with "permanent" ink. Of course it would be very American (in the bad sense) to say "don't bother me, it's their problem". For ther second: Is it possible to GET a photo ID just for voting purposes?
Oakman wrote:
Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
So, say, Stephen Hawking may not vote? :cool: What about civil service?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighist -
A government-issued, mandatory photo-ID :shrug: It's not me who got a problem with that.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistYou appeared to above: "First, why put burden of proof on the voter?" "Second, I find it weird that in a country where a universal government-ordered ID card is mostly looked at with suspicion, one such would be required for electing the government."
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Zimbabwe + America
Clang... the sound of a penny dropping in a cavernous and empty brain case.
-
Oakman wrote:
To the best of my knowledge there are no western civilizations that allow people to walk in off the street and vote without providing their name and address so they can be checked against the voting rolls.
Fair enough. However, even the most desperate countries organize Voter identification themselves - even if it's just marking their fingers with "permanent" ink. Of course it would be very American (in the bad sense) to say "don't bother me, it's their problem". For ther second: Is it possible to GET a photo ID just for voting purposes?
Oakman wrote:
Let's say you can't vote unless you have served in the military and been honorably discharged - in other words if you won't protect it, you can't use it.
So, say, Stephen Hawking may not vote? :cool: What about civil service?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
However, even the most desperate countries organize Voter identification themselves
That, apparently, is what is being complained about. Indiana passed a law requiring a photo ID. Whats the big deal?
peterchen wrote:
Is it possible to GET a photo ID just for voting purposes?
Absolutely. From the same place and through the same mechanism that one obtains a driver's license. However, it is not just for voting puirposes but would be accepted as proof of ID, age, etc. in a number of circumstances.
peterchen wrote:
So, say, Stephen Hawking may not vote
I cannot imagine that the armed services would be anything but glad to accept Stephen Hawkins and provide him with a brevet commission at whatever rank he thought he'd like. While the average joe like me may be required to learn how to fight, there are, today, plenty of folks who are given direct appointments as commissioned and warrent officers.
peterchen wrote:
What about civil service?
Seems to me that anyone who works for the government as a civil servant should be barred from voting for at least five years after termination.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The first victims of the new ruling on Voter ID were elderly nuns in Indiana.[^] So much for that argument. I don't know why this is so hard to understand - I'd rather chance that a few, or even alot more than a few, people with no right to vote here cast a ballot than to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands who DO have a right to vote and are denied it. It's like that "I'd rather 1000 guilty men go free than imprison one innocent one" idea. Sometimes I think people get so caught up in the vindictiveness of "justice" that they forget who pays its price.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
I think the priviledge to vote should be far more stringent than it is. In fact, I think that only those who pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare, should be allowed to vote at all, and that proof of that should be required at the polls before any voting is allowed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I always thought that "disenfranchise" means "turning McDonalds into Pa's homemade ground-beef-saucer-in-a-bun eatery" :rolleyes:
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
blog: TDD - the Aha! | Linkify!| FoldWithUs! | sighistpeterchen wrote:
I always thought that "disenfranchise" means "turning McDonalds into Pa's homemade ground-beef-saucer-in-a-bun eatery
That's what comes of learning English by hanging around American bars.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Is it harder to get a government issue photo ID in the US than in South Africa? Here is is mandatory for a host of activities, and takes six weeks through a really efficient Home Affairs department, and can take years with bad ones. It takes ten days for just a stamped piece of paper for a temporary ID while you wait. We normally all get one when we turn sixteen, and only have to go through the process once, barring theft or loss of your ID document.
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Is it harder to get a government issue photo ID in the US than in South Africa? Here is is mandatory for a host of activities, and takes six weeks
Here it takes from twenty minutes to a few hours depending on how busy the ID -issuer is (usually the same place that issues drivers' licenses). In some states (Massachusetts for instance) the first ID you apply for, is mailed to you to make sure that your gave a legitimate address and you receive a cardboard form to use in the meantime. (Note it's been a while since I took my daughter to get her license. the rules may have changed.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I think the priviledge to vote should be far more stringent than it is. In fact, I think that only those who pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare, should be allowed to vote at all, and that proof of that should be required at the polls before any voting is allowed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Don't you just hate it when an atheist agrees with you? I would, possibly, go a step further: anyone with an IQ of less than 110 is plainly too stupid to understand what they are voting for so should be barred from so doing. (I'm kidding) ;)
-
Don't you just hate it when an atheist agrees with you? I would, possibly, go a step further: anyone with an IQ of less than 110 is plainly too stupid to understand what they are voting for so should be barred from so doing. (I'm kidding) ;)
digital man wrote:
anyone with an IQ of less than 110
Not to mention breeding
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Is it harder to get a government issue photo ID in the US than in South Africa? Here is is mandatory for a host of activities, and takes six weeks
Here it takes from twenty minutes to a few hours depending on how busy the ID -issuer is (usually the same place that issues drivers' licenses). In some states (Massachusetts for instance) the first ID you apply for, is mailed to you to make sure that your gave a legitimate address and you receive a cardboard form to use in the meantime. (Note it's been a while since I took my daughter to get her license. the rules may have changed.)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
It's a shame those nuns are so overworked, and can't even spare "twenty minutes to a few hours" to get an ID. Never mind a vote, give the poor women some time off!
Pits fall into Chuck Norris.
-
Don't you just hate it when an atheist agrees with you? I would, possibly, go a step further: anyone with an IQ of less than 110 is plainly too stupid to understand what they are voting for so should be barred from so doing. (I'm kidding) ;)
digital man wrote:
Don't you just hate it when an atheist agrees with you?
Not really. I'm probably actually closer to being an athiest than to being any sort of religious fundamentalist. Most of my bible belt family considers me to be an athiest.
digital man wrote:
I would, possibly, go a step further: anyone with an IQ of less than 110 is plainly too stupid to understand what they are voting for so should be barred from so doing
In a well designed democracy, I think that voting should be considered a priviledge to be earned or acquired in some way. I'm not a 'universal sufferage' kind of guy. I mean, its obvious that western civilization has been going down hill since women were allowed to vote after all. (I'm not sure if I'm kidding or not :~ )
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Don't you just hate it when an atheist agrees with you? I would, possibly, go a step further: anyone with an IQ of less than 110 is plainly too stupid to understand what they are voting for so should be barred from so doing. (I'm kidding) ;)
digital man wrote:
Don't you just hate it when an atheist agrees with you?
Stan is a Christian apologist more than anything else. He has some good points regarding Christianity that I don't disagree with. In some cases I completely agree with him. I do disagree with his constant attempts to whitewash the transgressions of organized religion; i.e. his apologetics.
-
I think the priviledge to vote should be far more stringent than it is. In fact, I think that only those who pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare, should be allowed to vote at all, and that proof of that should be required at the polls before any voting is allowed.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, I think that only those who pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare,
define welfare - does that include unemployment compensation, social security, veterans' benefits? Or do you actually mean welfare?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
In fact, I think that only those who pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare,
define welfare - does that include unemployment compensation, social security, veterans' benefits? Or do you actually mean welfare?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
You might try reading the article before replying to me. The article isn't about challengers to the law; it's about a group of nuns who fell victim to it on Tuesday in Indiana's primary.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Given the amount of publicity that law recieved befor the election, and that Indiana provides FREE photo IDs to anyone who can prove their identity and residency, this was much more likely a blatant attempt to get publicity and make people (like you) think the law was somehow disenfranchising innocent nuns. What a load of crap, and you fell for it.
-
-
Yes. You're right. You said it far better than I did
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
That, at least, is how our founders contemplated government
They contemplated a government in which white males with property could vote; no-one else could. Is that what you are suggesting? Voting isn't a privilge, but it is not a universal right - ask most convicts, everyone under the age of 18, and every legal alien living in this country. To expect people to provide proof of their identity is commonplace in the 21st century. If those nuns were so dumb they would have tried to cash a check without proof of identity, then I am just as glad they didn't get to vote. Call it an IQ test.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
They contemplated a government in which white males with property could vote; no-one else could. Is that what you are suggesting?
Oh come on Jon, I really expected better of you. The sort of argument you just made is worse than ad hominem - it's downright reactionary. So what you're basically saying is that if we advocate a single idea that our founders held to, we're advocating all of them, including the worst ones?
Oakman wrote:
Voting isn't a privilge, but it is not a universal right
True enough, but it IS a right and that means the measure of verification required to exercise it should be as low as possible.
Oakman wrote:
then I am just as glad they didn't get to vote
This seems to me to be an argument of convenience... and vindictive at that.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein