Damn illegal alien... Catholic.. nuns... no vote for you!
-
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
-
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:
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.
True enough, but my statement that government must justify any authority it exercises is true regardless of who might have originated the idea (not our founders, by the way). Would you have brought up places they were wrong if I hadn't brought them up at all? Would my argument have been any more or less true if they weren't mentioned? The answer can't be anything but 'no.' To dismiss it because they held other ideas we've long abandoned is lazy. Every idea deserves its own discussion; there are very, very few ideas that can and should be dismissed so easily. One might ask, then, why I mentioned it; actually the only reason I mentioned it was to highlight the change in American way of thinking about government.
Oakman wrote:
I think requiring a free photo-id fits that requirement well enough in the 21st century.
I don't know. When I worked at the polls here in Maryland, the law only allows us to verbally verify the voter's full name, registered address, and birth date, against an electronic roster supplied by the board of elections. We're not allowed to ask for ID, but we are allowed to use it if it is offered. Civilization as we know it has yet to implode using that method. There's no evidence that widespread, virulent voter fraud is occurring as a result of a lack of requiring photo ID at the polls.
Oakman wrote:
'Twasn't an argument, just an observation. And I can be as vindictive as hell, sometimes.
Fair enough. I can be too, sometimes :-D
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
Oakman wrote:
But it is one of, or the, primary forms of voter fraud that is being targetted. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Actually, I'm not sure what leads you to believe this is a worse problem now than it has ever been. I don't say this as an indictment against you - actually, I'm pointing out a possible gap in my own knowledge. I really have no idea where this sudden paranoia about voter fraud is coming from. It's something that has existed since the founding the United States, in small degrees, and I'm not sure where the perception that it is worse now, or should be dealt with more stringently, is coming from.
Oakman wrote:
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.
I point to my prior answer regarding my experience at the polls in Maryland. And I'll add, not all states provide a free ID. If one is required to exercise a civil right, it should be provided free of charge.
Oakman wrote:
And eliminating voter fraud is an excellent step in that direction.
That's the thing though - it can't be completely eliminated without becoming the very dictatorships we decry. There's a diminishing return on the attempt to crush voter fraud, and there's no evidence that it's so widespread a problem as to require this kind of response.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
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
Patrick S wrote:
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
The classic citation for this is Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960. Kennedy was so popular a candidate there, apparently, that the dead climbed out of their graves and voted for him - enough so that Chicago's vote overwhelemd the southern Illinois vote for Nixon. And Illiois's vote determined that Kennedy would be the next President. Ask yourself how much of today's world was determined by that voter fraud. Ask yourself how much of the last eight years was determined by the highly irregular election of 2000 in a few counties in the single state of Florida, or the last four years by the outcome of the election of 2004 in the state of Ohio. It seems to mde that photo ID would have stopped Daley cold (for better or worse.) and might have insured that a lot of voters in Florida were not challenged or intimidated into not voting.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Patrick S wrote:
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
The classic citation for this is Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960. Kennedy was so popular a candidate there, apparently, that the dead climbed out of their graves and voted for him - enough so that Chicago's vote overwhelemd the southern Illinois vote for Nixon. And Illiois's vote determined that Kennedy would be the next President. Ask yourself how much of today's world was determined by that voter fraud. Ask yourself how much of the last eight years was determined by the highly irregular election of 2000 in a few counties in the single state of Florida, or the last four years by the outcome of the election of 2004 in the state of Ohio. It seems to mde that photo ID would have stopped Daley cold (for better or worse.) and might have insured that a lot of voters in Florida were not challenged or intimidated into not voting.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The classic citation for this is Mayor Daley's Chicago in 1960.
Fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
It seems to mde that photo ID would have stopped Daley cold (for better or worse.) and might have insured that a lot of voters in Florida were not challenged or intimidated into not voting.
Ok, so here's the real challenge. Can there be any other way to do it that doesn't require a voter to present ID at the poll? (You could require them to do so anywhere else, but not at the poll). Can you think of one? What I'm getting at is that if, after serious consideration and alot of study, we determine that yeah, in today's world, an ID requirement really is the best way to go, then I'll acquiesce. It seems to me, though, that much of the call for an ID is a knee-jerk reaction.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
Oakman wrote:
But it is one of, or the, primary forms of voter fraud that is being targetted. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Actually, I'm not sure what leads you to believe this is a worse problem now than it has ever been. I don't say this as an indictment against you - actually, I'm pointing out a possible gap in my own knowledge. I really have no idea where this sudden paranoia about voter fraud is coming from. It's something that has existed since the founding the United States, in small degrees, and I'm not sure where the perception that it is worse now, or should be dealt with more stringently, is coming from.
Oakman wrote:
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.
I point to my prior answer regarding my experience at the polls in Maryland. And I'll add, not all states provide a free ID. If one is required to exercise a civil right, it should be provided free of charge.
Oakman wrote:
And eliminating voter fraud is an excellent step in that direction.
That's the thing though - it can't be completely eliminated without becoming the very dictatorships we decry. There's a diminishing return on the attempt to crush voter fraud, and there's no evidence that it's so widespread a problem as to require this kind of response.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Actually, I'm not sure what leads you to believe this is a worse problem now than it has ever been.
Never before have we had a large block of illegal aliens accustomed to exercising the rights of citizens while remaining loyal to another country. Photo ID won't catch all of them, by any stretch of the imagination, but it will lessen their impact on the elections. As to better or worse, I have in another post mentioned three national elections that either were or could have been decided by voter fraud in a few key precincts.
Patrick S wrote:
I point to my prior answer regarding my experience at the polls in Maryland
I was struck with how easily circumvented Maryland's precautions could be circumvented. I can only hope it is not a swing state.
Patrick S wrote:
If one is required to exercise a civil right, it should be provided free of charge.
In my long and dissolute past, I have learned that more fights, including wars, have been waged because someone decided that something "should" be done than any other reason. It is a word that falls easily onto the page when you are writing. Perhaps you'd like to start offering up more reasons for your "shoulds" than speaking ex cathedra from your navel? If for no other reason that to stop setting off warning bells when I read your missives?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface