Damn illegal alien... Catholic.. nuns... no vote for you!
-
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
-
Bottom line: if you can either prove who you are or have some other means of identifying your right to vote surely that is preferable to letting anyone vote regardless? What, for instance, would stop an unscrupulous character (i.e. a politician) from getting many other like minded people or supporters to go from poll to poll voting each time and skewing the vote in their favour? With something as important as a vote I think that anything that stops fraud is preferable to nothing at all. Your way is the way to vote rigging, cheating etc. That cannot be right: my vote is precious and I would mightily resent someone appropriating it or getting a vote that they are not entitled to and that may put into power someone that has won that right through cheating.
digital man wrote:
Bottom line: if you can either prove who you are or have some other means of identifying your right to vote surely that is preferable to letting anyone vote regardless?
Absolutely. This is where we fundamentally agree.
digital man wrote:
What, for instance, would stop an unscrupulous character (i.e. a politician) from getting many other like minded people or supporters to go from poll to poll voting each time and skewing the vote in their favour?
Well, first and foremost, every state and jurisdiction keeps a roster of registered voters by name and address. Unless you actually had access to that list (and I suppose an unscrupulous politician might), it would be very difficult to vote in thousands of other people's names - and I suspect it would be found out pretty quickly when a thousand people come forward and state that they weren't able to vote because someone else had already checked in in their name.
digital man wrote:
Your way is the way to vote rigging, cheating etc.
Only if you claim I'm saying there should be NO standard of verification. I'm not.
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.
Rob Graham wrote:
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
For whatever reason, the nuns are physically unable to go to the DMV to actually get the ID. Why they aren't capable of that, but capable of going to vote, I don't know.. and is a good question.
Rob Graham wrote:
What a load of crap, and you fell for it.
Feel better now?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Patrick S wrote:
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.
Fair enough, but is this likely to be a big problem long term? Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote? If they can't manage that, one wonders how they cope with the rest of their lives.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Fair enough, but is this likely to be a big problem long term? Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote?
That is yet to be seen. The Supreme Court's ruling was only a couple of off weeks ago and many states had held of instituting such laws precisely because previously, they couldn't pass Constitutional muster. Now that this Supreme Court says they do, expect to see voting become alot more difficult for people who typically go out of their way to stay out of government offices (even if there's no reason to do so).
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
modified on Friday, May 9, 2008 3:05 PM
-
John Carson wrote:
Are there really a lot of eligible would-be voters who can't manage to get themselves ID in order to vote?
You have indeed bottom-lined it. But there are a number of left-wingers (god, I sound like Stan!) who are aware that there are a number of illegal aliens - perhaps as many as 20 million - who could be used to commit massive voter fraud. It's highly unlikely that the fraud won't benefit any Republicans. There is already proof that Hillary received the maximum donation ($2300) from a great number of recent Chinese immigrants most of whom were apparently so enamoured with her return that they were donating about one fourth of a year's salary. Conveniently, these donations had been collected, tabulated and listed for the Clinton Campaign by a single, very rich Chinese immigrant. Many of the donors listed had moved from their domiciles and vanished by the time an investigation took place. . .
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But there are a number of left-wingers (god, I sound like Stan!) who are aware that there are a number of illegal aliens - perhaps as many as 20 million - who could be used to commit massive voter fraud. It's highly unlikely that the fraud won't benefit any Republicans.
I should like to point out that opposition to a strict voter ID law is not alone an attempt to allow illegal aliens to vote. It's crap like that that I expected better of you, Jon. It's a very complex issue and this article alone demonstrates that illegal aliens aren't the only ones who might be thrown under the bus by laws like this. Simplifying it to "it's all about the illegal aliens!" is intellectually dishonest. I've no interest in advocating for illegals being allowed to vote. I don't think they should be. But I DO think the voting rights of every eligible voter should be protected.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
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
Patrick S wrote:
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?
One does not get to pick and choose among appeals to the past. The founding fathers were not perfect and not prescient only when it suits you to find them lacking. Don't blame me when you find yourself hoist by your own petard.
Patrick S wrote:
True enough, but it IS a right and that means the measure of verification required to exercise it should be as low as possible.
I think requiring a free photo-id fits that requirement well enough in the 21st century.
Patrick S wrote:
This seems to me to be an argument of convenience... and vindictive at that.
'Twasn't an argument, just an observation. And I can be as vindictive as hell, sometimes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
But there are a number of left-wingers (god, I sound like Stan!) who are aware that there are a number of illegal aliens - perhaps as many as 20 million - who could be used to commit massive voter fraud. It's highly unlikely that the fraud won't benefit any Republicans.
I should like to point out that opposition to a strict voter ID law is not alone an attempt to allow illegal aliens to vote. It's crap like that that I expected better of you, Jon. It's a very complex issue and this article alone demonstrates that illegal aliens aren't the only ones who might be thrown under the bus by laws like this. Simplifying it to "it's all about the illegal aliens!" is intellectually dishonest. I've no interest in advocating for illegals being allowed to vote. I don't think they should be. But I DO think the voting rights of every eligible voter should be protected.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
I should like to point out that opposition to a strict voter ID law is not alone an attempt to allow illegal aliens to vote
But it is one of, or the, primary forms of voter fraud that is being targetted. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. As to "strict voter ID," I am afraid I see a requirement to have a photo ID in the 21st century to be a minimal intrusion into the process, especially since the state is will to provide the ID for free.
Patrick S wrote:
But I DO think the voting rights of every eligible voter should be protected.
And eliminating voter fraud is an excellent step in that direction.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface