Question for those that oppose requiring a photo ID for voting

[daveman]

(bold large font in quote added by me for emphasis)

A) I never said they didn't get driver's licenses and SS cards.
B) If they can get illegal driver's licenses "all the time" how the fuck is a voter ID law going to stop them from voting, genius?

Stop motor-voter registrations, for one thing.

And how does that stop anyone from getting a fake id ?

Switch to biometrics. Much more difficult to counterfeit.

The only reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is it will limit illegal voters from pulling the D lever. That's a fact.

It will not limit illegal voters from pulling the lever.

If done correctly, it will.

1. Verify legal voter status at registration.

2. Require ID upon voting to determine if the voter is the same person who registered.

There really is no reasonable opposition to this.

 

[daveman]

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

If guns kill people, forks make people fat.

Well stated.

Maybe Moochelle O went about her campaign against FAT the wrong way and should have attacked the Dinnerware Consortium? Put a FORK in 'em...they're DONE!

It's a conspiracy by BIG FLATWARE!!

 

[daveman]

Nobody does. You have bought a line of bullshit and become outraged by it.

Ahem:

http://www.acluofnc.org/files/Photo ID fact sheet_0.pdf

You seem to clear your throat often. Whatchya got jammed in there anyway?

Well, that's a rather lame and feeble attempt at trying to distract attention away from the fact that I proved you wrong.

 

[daveman]

I am often amused by the ease with which many USC loving patriots would strip others of fundamental rights.

By opposing requirements to limit voter fraud, you are supporting the disenfranchisement of legal voters.

I do not oppose any such requirements.......as long as they don't supress votes. Now...scurry back.

They won't. But people with a vested interest in assuring nothing is done to combat voter fraud have told you it will...and like a good 'bot, you repeat your programming.

 

[The T]

If guns kill people, forks make people fat.

Well stated.

Maybe Moochelle O went about her campaign against FAT the wrong way and should have attacked the Dinnerware Consortium? Put a FORK in 'em...they're DONE!

It's a conspiracy by BIG FLATWARE!!

 

[MeBelle]

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

I don't see where Wry Catcher ever claimed that guns jump up all by themselves and kill people. In fact, the word "used" in the statement " guns used illegally" implies that they need to be used in order to "kill people" - that's basic reading comprehension.

I don't see where I ever claimed that Wry Catcher claimed that either!

I was simply clarifying the statement for those who may have problems with basic reading comprehension.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting - but invalid.
You cannot "undo" a ballot after is has been cast, should you find the person who cast it was not legally able to do so.

Of course you can. A ballot suspected as being cast by a suspected cheat can be provisional and held from the count until the voter has been vetted.

Only if you have reason to suspect the person in question is trying to vote illegally and then give him a provisional ballot rather than allow hom to cast a ballot normally.
How do you do that without some sort of ID that verifies who the person is?

If the ballot is cast in the normal manner and then it is later found out that the person who cast it did so illegally, there's no way to undo what was done.

And thus, your argument fails.

Whatever

 

[Chris]

lol, guns used illegally kill people every day, every day someone is killed by a gun. Every day, some family loses someone, some parent learns his child has been shot to death.

I have never seen a gun jump up all by itself and kill somebody.
People kill people.
Some use a gun as their weapon of choice.

Guns don't kill people.

Bullets kill people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would respectfully disagree. I register my car. I also have to prove I've been trained to use it properly and safely. I think that should be required of gun owners or that they should should that like me, they have had such training while in the military.

Also, unless you are part of a well-regulated militia, there is nothing that says you are entitled to own a gun. Well, that's one interpretation. And that's the thing with the USC - there's no escaping it must be interpreted. Those who say otherwise, simply claim that their interpretation is the only valid one.

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So long as it is free..and the voter registeration requirement is either removed..or made same day..
I'm fine with it.
IDs should be mailed to everyone's home.
And the homeless should be able to pick them up with no troubles.
You good with that?

So you do not, in and of itself, oppose requiring a photo ID for voting.
Thank you.

Nobody does. You have bought a line of bullshit and become outraged by it.

It would be too easy to agree with you that those here who plainly DO disagree wit it are indeed "nobodies"...
But, the point remains that there are clearly people who DO disagree with the requirement of a photo ID for voting.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?
And of course, you feel that my Muslim neighbor is entitled to own a nuke! How wonderful of you. I'll let him know.

More government control and intervention. The well-regulated militia is proof against the tyranny of government run amok. I'm not sure where you get your ideas, but you have apparently bought into a pack of bullshit.

Ahhhh, the "Dodge". Nicely done.

Speaking of dodging...

I didnt see your response to post # 134

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ring-a-photo-id-for-voting-9.html#post4624766

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course you can. A ballot suspected as being cast by a suspected cheat can be provisional and held from the count until the voter has been vetted.

Only if you have reason to suspect the person in question is trying to vote illegally and then give him a provisional ballot rather than allow hom to cast a ballot normally.
How do you do that without some sort of ID that verifies who the person is?

If the ballot is cast in the normal manner and then it is later found out that the person who cast it did so illegally, there's no way to undo what was done.

And thus, your argument fails.

Whatever

I accept your concession of the point. Thank you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

Supreme Courts are not Supreme Beings, see Dred Scott, Plessy, and CU v. FEC.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Owning an automobile is not a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Owning a firearm is. Try comparing apples to apples sometime, it works better.

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

Ahhh, so you're one of those guys who believes the USC needs to be INTERPRETED by SCOTUS.
I thought you might be one of those who takes it literally and considers it static and not a living document.

Okay, well then good for you!

 

[daveman]

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

Supreme Courts are not Supreme Beings, see Dred Scott, Plessy, and CU v. FEC.

Neither are you. Bearing arms is an individual right. Get over it.

 

[daveman]

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

Ahhh, so you're one of those guys who believes the USC needs to be INTERPRETED by SCOTUS.
I thought you might be one of those who takes it literally and considers it static and not a living document.

Okay, well then good for you!

SCOTUS took that case because leftists were interpreting the Constitution...and getting it wrong. SCOTUS slapped them down for it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only if you have reason to suspect the person in question is trying to vote illegally and then give him a provisional ballot rather than allow hom to cast a ballot normally.
How do you do that without some sort of ID that verifies who the person is?

If the ballot is cast in the normal manner and then it is later found out that the person who cast it did so illegally, there's no way to undo what was done.

And thus, your argument fails.

Whatever

I accept your concession of the point. Thank you.

Not a concession by any means, I simply am tired of debating a closed mind devoid of reason.

Explain to me how a ballot cast in a normal manner is later found to be illegally cast? Do you suppose clerks spend months going over ever signature from every polling place in the country and compare them to prior year signatures? And then what, find out the person now has a hand injury, suffers from palsy or was in a hurry?

And in your magical thinking, have you considered the consequences of those who are denied the right to vote for failure to provide an ID who later prove that they are a legal voter? What remedy do you propose?

"Whatever" is another way I use when I'm frustrated by concrete thinkers, most times I write, "thanks for sharing". At the time I wrote, "whatever" I felt you didn't deserve three words. Why I'm wasting words on you is a great wonder, though maybe somewhere in your brain hides the ability to reason.

 

[IndependntLogic]

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

Ahhh, so you're one of those guys who believes the USC needs to be INTERPRETED by SCOTUS.
I thought you might be one of those who takes it literally and considers it static and not a living document.

Okay, well then good for you!

SCOTUS took that case because leftists were interpreting the Constitution...and getting it wrong. SCOTUS slapped them down for it.

Thank you for clarifying that when SCOTUS agrees with you, it is good to interpret the USC and when SCOTUS doesn't, it is bad. Got it.

I guess that's the difference with us Indies. We're consistent. Whether it's gun ownership, taxes, war, health care, unions or whatever, or opinions and criticisms don't change because of who is in office or what FOX and The Machine declares we should think.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fine. So which well-regulated militia are you a part of and where do you report in on a regular basis? Who are the government regulators who oversee your militia? Where do they file their reports to the regular army?

The SCotUS has disagreed with you, twice - the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia.

Supreme Courts are not Supreme Beings, see Dred Scott, Plessy, and CU v. FEC.

Anotther failure by you to meaningfully address the issue. Good to see you have your routine down.

Your situation-based comment doesn't change the fact that the court has, twice, ruled that the right to arms belongs to the individual, regardless of his relationship to the militia, and that in doing so, the SCotUS has negated the argument he presented.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Whatever

I accept your concession of the point. Thank you.

Not a concession by any means,

Keep thinking that. Your failure to addrsss the issue says all that needs to be said.