One of the great things about UT is the almost daily parade of noon-time speakers. Some of the speakers are very interesting. While others, not so much. What makes the speaker series so compelling, however, is the free pizza – a Godsend to poor students like me.
Today’s speaker was Professor Jocelyn Benson (
Benson argued that voter ID laws intimidate potential voters, particularly poorer voters, into not voting, thus denying them their constitutional right to vote. She made a similar argument with regards to felon disenfranchisement. She related it specifically to the disproportionate number of minorities with felony convictions, claiming that these laws violated the constitutional right of minorities to vote.
She may or may not make valid points, depending on your point of view. But let’s grant her summary judgment and assume, for the sake of argument, that she is right. Now, let’s apply her logic to the second amendment.
I have a constitutional right to bear arms. I am still required, however, to show ID in order to purchase a firearm. But doesn’t that requirement discriminate against poorer citizens who may not have identification? Shouldn’t those citizens be guaranteed the same protections as wealthier citizens?
We also have laws in place to limit the ability of convicted felons, particularly those convicted of violent and drug crimes, to purchase firearms. African Americans make up a disproportionate percentage of felony convictions, especially in violent or drug crimes. But don't those restrictions hinder the ability of African Americans to purchase a firearm? Shouldn’t we be protecting their rights?
Yet the left supports requiring IDs to purchase firearms and preventing convicted felons from purchasing firearms.
If the left so vehemently supports these two restrictions on gun ownership, why don’t they accept similar restrictions on voting? Answer: intellectual hypocrisy.
113 comments:
ummm...
it's fairly obvious to me that you can't kill anyone with your vote, whereas you can kill lots of people with your gun.
Does that help distinguish it for you?
Oh but a vote can kill. Isn't that what the left has said about Bush and the war in Iraq? According to the Dems, all us red-staters who voted for Bush have the blood of Iraqi children on our hands.
By the way, I am not advocating lifting ID and felony restrictions on firearm purchases. I am just using that example to illustrate the flaws in the logic.
Also, ID laws serve to protect rights, not restrict them. Under the old laws, ANYONE could walk into my precinct, say they were me, and vote however they pleased. Then, when I show up later in the day to vote, I am denied that right because, according to them, I already voted. I will gladly show my ID if it means protecting my right to vote as I see fit.
Touchdown John H!
Boo-yah.
*dons politically insensitive (and sarcastic) hat*
You say IDs and felony restrictions keep minorities from having guns AND voting? Where do I sign!
LOL.
You call that logic?
C'mon! This is the same kind of B.S. that has you equating child molestation with the Clinton's consensual affair with a 21-year-old.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty, your comparisons are laughable and could only be taken seriously by someone with half a brain.
A single vote can't kill. A bunch of votes in the hands of retarded Republicans can definitely end up killing more people than necessary, and killing the wrong people, but that has nothing to do with equating voting with gettiong a gun no questions asked.
Your analysis is simplistic and your logic doesn't hold water.
That's why you are all wet on this one.
And PMB, you might just be being facetious, but you just expressed exactly how a majority of racist Republicans feel about denying minorities the right to vote.
Ha! Ha! Booyah! Or whatever you ESPN watching, wanna-be Republican frat boys say.
"According to the Dems, all us red-staters who voted for Bush have the blood of Iraqi children on our hands."
John?
Can I have your source on this?
Or did you just make it up for rhetorical effect?
Because it sounds like more Fox news propaganda addled, brainless Republican B.S. to me...
How many times did someone walk into your precinct and pretend they were you John?
Is this one of those huge problems, (like flag-burning) that Republicans are so concerned about?
Is that truly behind the burning need to place more hurdles in front of minorities who want to vote?
Just curious...
"I will gladly show my ID if it means protecting my right to vote as I see fit."
Perhaps after that, we can show them the 666 tatooed on our foreheads (You know to protect our right to vote and some such.)
I'm sure the law enforcement officials will be stopping white boys like you to ask for your ID all the time. (Like they have asked for mine when I'm just walking down the street minding my own business. I didn't show them my ID, but I showed them this neat little hand gesture I can do with one of my fingers.)
John, may I? Feel free to delete if I get out-of-line.
Israel,
1. John never equated child molestation with Clinton's affair with a 21-year-old. Your continued insistence that he has done this is puzzling.
2. 95% of your arguments are of the most simplistic straw-man variety...don't even know where to begin.
3.
A bunch of votes in the hands of retarded Republicans can definitely end up [...] killing the wrong people, but that has nothing to do with equating voting with getting a gun no questions asked.
That's funny because one comment later, you claim the idea that "us red-staters who voted for Bush have the blood of Iraqi children on our hands." was made up by fox news. Odd.
You are right that the point has nothing to do with equating voting and getting a gun.
The point is that for two _equally_unqualified_ rights granted to us by the constitution, liberals take the position that adding an ID qualification is reasonable for one and not the other. It doesn't matter if someone thinks one right "should" be in a class of its own if the Constitution doesn't make a distinction. The argument then is based on opinion and not law. The point is that the "race" argument against IDs is inconsistent at best.
4. You claim John's example of someone voting for him is rare and thus not credible. In response, I ask how many citizens actually vote and DO NOT ALREADY have some ID for either driving or welfare?
If arguments can be thrown out just because they aren't likely, then (by your logic) the anti-ID liberals don't have a leg to stand on either.
Well put, Paul Michael, you crazy Republican frat boy!
Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug! Chug!
Israel, you keep trying to distinguish the right to vote and the right to bear arms. They are, however, intrinsically linked. The founders, in the constitution, provided two methods for keeping tyranny in check: guns and votes. They are essential elements of the democratic process.
I find it amusing that you accuse me of sourceless rhetoric, then call the majority of Republicans racist. Where is your source for this? Both are merely anecdotal statements. As far as Fox News, I don't watch any of the cable snews networks. I get my fill of hot air by reading your posts. (Kidding!)
As of now, there is nothing to stop either party from identifying registered voters who do not intend to vote, and then sending in pseudo-voters. This is no less of a far-fetched notion than some of the conspiracy theories Dems have thrown around in the past two elections, and it would not be that difficult to implement.
I don't see how requesting an ID discriminates against minorities. It's a non-sequitor. They have access to the same systems of government. They can go in and get a driver's license or even a state-issued photo ID just as easily as I can. It is no more of a hurdle to them as it is to me. If someone cares enough about the future of this country to take the time to vote, then there should be nothing to stop them from taking the time to secure the necessary identification.
SORRY ABOUT THE CAPS, BUT I'M QUOTING LIBERALLY AND I WANT YOU GUYS TO BE ABLE TO FOLLOW THIS.
1) I find it amusing that you accuse me of sourceless rhetoric, then call the majority of Republicans racist. Where is your source for this?
READ MY POST AGAIN SLOWLY...
IT SAYS "you just expressed exactly how a majority of racist Republicans feel."
A MAJORITY OF RACIST REPUBLICANS...
I did not call the majority of republicans racist as you stated.
2) "John never equated child molestation with Clinton's affair with a 21-year-old. Your continued insistence that he has done this is puzzling."
SEE JOHN'S "POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK" ARGUMENT AND SEE IF HE DOESN'T EQUATE WHAT FOLEY DID TO WHAT CLINTON DID.
3) "That's funny because one comment later, you claim the idea that "us red-staters who voted for Bush have the blood of Iraqi children on our hands." was made up by fox news. Odd."
NO I DIDN'T READ MY POST AGAIN SLOWLY... (YOU CAN MOVE YOUR LIPS, IF IT HELPS, BECAUSE READING COMPREHENSION IS A GOOD THING.)
I compared what John was doing (making stuff up and sticking words in Democrat's mouths) to what Fox News does everyday.
4) PMB-
"two _equally_unqualified_ rights granted to us by the constitution"
WHERE DO YOU GET THIS HOOEY? DID YOU EVER READ THE CONSTITUTION? BECAUSE I BET YOU MOST REPUBLICAN "SCHOLARS" NEVER HAVE. (ESPECIALLY THE NRA GUN NUTS)
DID YOU KNOW THAT WOMEN AND BLACK PEOPLE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO VOTE AT ONE TIME? HOW IS THAT FOR UNQUALIFIED?
THE ONLY THING "UNQUALIFIED" ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT, IS THE PERSON MAKING IT.
5) "I don't see how requesting an ID discriminates against minorities. It's a non-sequitor. They have access to the same systems of government. They can go in and get a driver's license or even a state-issued photo ID just as easily as I can."
JOHN THIS IS WHERE YOU AND MOST WHITE PEOPLE JUST DON'T "GET IT." YOU ARE PROBABLY HAPPY TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO TURN US INTO A POLICE STATE WHERE PEOPLE CONSTANTLY HAVE TO PRODUCE "OUR PAPERS," BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY HAVE NEVER BEEN DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY THE COPS.
WE CONSTANTLY GET PULLED OVER FOR NO REASON AND ARE CONSTANTLY BEING ASKED FOR I.D. SO WE WILL BEAR THE BRUNT OF ANY CALL FOR THE FIXING THINGS BY REQUIRING I.D.S
(JUST ASK MY BLACK FRIEND WHO OWNS THE ROLLS AND THE BENTLEY, HE GETS PULLED OVER FOR NO REASON AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH.)SO WHO DO YOU THINK THEY WILL BE STOPPING AND ASKING FOR I.D., WHITE PEOPLE OR BROWN PEOPLE?
6) FINALLY JOHN, MAYBE YOU COULD GO TALK TO THOSE AMISH PEOPLE WHO JUST HAD THEIR KIDS SHOT TO DEATH ABOUT YOUR IRRATIONAL FEAR THAT MINORITIES MIGHT SOMEHOW BE TRYING TO VOTE IN YOUR STEAD. MAYBE THEY'LL GIVE YOU SOME SYMPATHY.
SHOW ME WHERE THIS EPIDEMIC OF MINORITY VOTER FRAUD EXISTS AND I'LL GLADLY GO STAND GUARD. BUT ALL THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS IS THE LATEST REPUBLICAN ATTEMPT TO TURN MEXICANS INTO A POLITICAL FOOTBALL / BOOGEYMAN AND YOU APPARENTLY FELL FOR THEIR BALONEY HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.
Ahh nothing better than vigorous debate to get the juices flowing, even if it's just a no-holds-barred cage match with two vastly overmatched (wannabe) Republicans.
Wannabe-- but can't be -- because the Republicans are such an embarrassment.
Sorry, Israel, but your logic must be too sophisticated for my brain.
BTW: I'm not really sure how to take you. Are you trying to be funny or are you serious in making belittling comments?
P.S.
As to reading comprehension, your crack about "extreme" (on the other thread) was based on a mis-understanding of the word usage. "Extreme" in that case was used to emphasize the smallness of the sample size, not the position of the Dems.
Here's another take on the "race" argument...
If I were a liberal and said we should have ID and felony restrictions on gun ownership BECAUSE minorities just can't handle that sort of responsibility and are more likely to go out and shoot each other (thus fewer votes for Democrats *rimshot*) I'd be tarred-n-feathered - justly so.
But, if I were a liberal, I CAN say ID restrictions for voters are too arduous for minority citizens but not for whites. I am now implying that this is because minorities are either too simple, stupid, and/or lazy to get an ID card so they can perform their duties as citizens. By making the distinction, I'm also implying that this isn't a problem for white citizens. Now THAT's insulting!
Yes, I know what the constitution says about voting rights and how it used to qualify based on race and gender.
Maybe you forgot the 14th and 18th amendments (also part of the Constitution, last I checked).
Those two rights ARE unqualified in regards to the context in which it was referenced.
^ typo...make that 19 instead of 18
"Sorry, Israel, but your logic must be too sophisticated for my brain."
TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN TYPED.
You know, you guys are allowed to cry "uncle," no shame in that.
The only thing I can say is keep re-reading my posts until you "get it."
Some questions for you:
Why do you guys insist on "fixing" problems that don't exist and ignoring problems that do?
Are you guys that scared of brown people?
And a final comment:
I like your exteremely, extreme definition of the word "extreme."
There is no such thing as an "unqualified right."
Although there are plenty of people who are "unqualified rightists."
Clever, huh?
"BTW: I'm not really sure how to take you. Are you trying to be funny or are you serious in making belittling comments?"
BOTH.
Israel, I don’t have the time to go through all the recent posts point-by-point, so I will just hit the highlights…
First off, I will admit that it is not possible for me to fully “get it” in terms of being routinely discriminated against. That said, I have been discriminated against by cops before. Years ago I drove a white Mustang with three-spoke aluminum wheels and tinted windows. I routinely had cops follow me down the road or pull me over for going 5 mph over the speed limit.
In one instance, I was driving at night when a car came flying up on my rear end. Instead of passing me, the car kept running up on my rear bumper, then backing off. Finally, I took the bait and stood on the gas. As soon as my speedometer hit 70 (it was a 55 zone) he hit the lights. (I couldn’t tell that it was a police car because it was at night.) He gave me a ticket for speeding and searched my vehicle for evidence of alcohol.
Nowadays, I can jump in Jess’ minivan and drive right by a cop at 15 mph over the speed limit and no front license plate (required by law in Ohio) and not get so much as a glance.
I am not trying to equate those experiences with those you have had. But prejudice takes on many forms.
My point is this, I don’t see where asking a voter for his drivers license or other state-issued photo ID is discrimination. If it is applied equally, if ALL voters, regardless of race or gender, are asked to show ID before voting, how is that discrimination? It is not.
Speaking of reading comprehension… where did I ever say that minorities might try to vote in my stead? My hypothetical made no mention of race. A white person could pull it off just as easily, if not more so.
All it would take would be a gang of overeager college kids trying to save the world by spending the day driving from precinct to precinct and voting for other people. There is absolutely nothing to stop this from happening.
Asking for ID is not a restriction on rights. It is a protection of them.
Wow and LOL!!!
(summary of anecdotal straw-man arguments above)
"I can't really argue logically, but you are wearing a funny hat (points and laughs) and my brain is bigger than your brain because I said so...now surrender to my superior reasoning or I'll tell mommy."
Again, wow.
I enjoy sparring with you, but frankly, the following comments hurt:
“BUT ALL THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS IS THE LATEST REPUBLICAN ATTEMPT TO TURN MEXICANS INTO A POLITICAL FOOTBALL / BOOGEYMAN AND YOU APPARENTLY FELL FOR THEIR BALONEY HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.”
…
“Are you guys that scared of brown people?”
I thought you knew me well enough to know that I have nothing but love and respect for Latinos. There are people who see the ever-increasing Hispanic-American population as a problem. I am not one of them. In fact, I am going to law school in order to help them come to America.
My support of voter ID laws has zero, zilch, nada to do with race or color and everything to do with protecting every citizen’s right to cast his or her own vote.
Look, Mr. Hot rod Driver, I know you're down with the Brown, but let's look at this issue carefully.
You can be a naive do-gooder and all, but the only reason Republicans are getting all exercised over this (non) issue is because of racism and xenophobia.
It's all about keeping brown people down. The Republicans have a long history of doing this (trying to intimidate minority voters) and the only reason Rehnquist got on the Supreme Court in the first place is because he was one of those, Republicans who was standing at the polling place trying to keep Mexicans out.
Believe the vast Majority of Republicans are not thinking about a bunch of college kids gaming the system, they are thinking about the "Mexican / Immigrant Menace."
As I explained, as far as discrimination goes, creating all these laws requiring more ID's, will have a definite "disparate impact" on minorities. The difference between direct discrimination and "disparate impact" discrimination is that a policy that seems neutral on it's face, can still be discriminatory in both it's effect and it's motivation.
And why should I, or any other moinority, trust the government or the Republicans? They created the Social Security number for tax purposes and now the system is being abused right and left.
This call for a national voter ID will also be abused and it's a slippery slope that we should not have to go down absent a real and present threat to our electoral system. (Imagined theats and or anti-immigrant hysteria is not enough.)
As for my hurtful comments, I'll try to be nicer, but you know me, I'm mean and I go for the jugular. I can't promise anything. Just look at it this way, you are being treated like family, no better no worse. that's how we express our love for each other, via copious insults.
Hey, I guess now that you aren't an elephant anymore, your skin isn't as thick. :)
And PMB I gotta say I like your style. A man after my own heart. You've got the sarcasm thing down cold, now you just gotta work on everything else.
I love my white mini-van.
It's like you're invisible. People stay away from me because they know I obviously have no reason to live (because I drive a minivan.)
I blow by sportscars at 90 plus miles an hour all the time, laughing my head off.
PMB -
Re: "my brain is bigger than your brain because I said so..."
Good! You are finally starting to "get it."
Israel
My question for you after reading all this is this, do you think the illegal immigrants have the right to vote?
Well, that's one of my questions anyway. Another one is this, why do you resort to personal insults? Do you think it makes your argument stronger? When you do that, it appears you have no argument, logically speaking. Stick to facts, man.
I guess that was technically two more questions.
I think you cleared up some of the confusion here when you said "national voter ID." I was referring to individual state laws requiring the presentation of a drivers license or, if not a licensed driver, a state-issued photo ID, which in Ohio at least is not that difficult to attain.
As you well know, the Constitution gives states the power in determining election law. A national voter ID card would be unconstitutional.
They already issue voter ID's. I have one somewhere. I have never once have been asked for it. I don't think there is a need for it and if I can't find it on election day, I don't want to be turned away.
No, Sharla illegal aliens do not have the right to vote and I don't think they should. They shouldn't have the right, they don't want it, and haven't asked for it. No one has provided a scintilla of evidence to support the voter fraud argument.
Did you see the story I posted about the Republicans in Orange County who sent out a letter falsely claiming that legal immigrants weren't allowed to vote either? That's what is really behind this push for IDs. Trying to intimidate legal immigrants and keep them away from the polls, and trying to energize the racist Republican voter base.
Every election the Republicans come up with some racially-divisive, scapegoating measure or issue to get their base riled up. Is that a coincidence?
Illegal aliens, they don't want to vote, they just want to work and support their families.
How do I know? I ran a huge voter registration campaign for the county. Went door to door all summer in the Tucson heat. Illegal aliens immediately tell you they can't vote, they have no interest in the American political process. I represent many illegal aliens in my legal practice. All they want is to remain under the radar and no matter how badly they have been taken advantage of or abused, it is always a struggle to get them to stand up for their rights.
I've worked political campaigns in districts with heavy illegal alien populations. Believe me, those people do not show up to the polls claiming they are John Hullinger.
In college I was president of the Hispanic Issues Response Committe for MECHA a Chicano student group that for years, Republicans have been accusing of some leftist / communist conspiracy to take over the U.S. using illegal aliens, etc. All those claims are absolutely 100% bogus. Republicans just make stuff up and go on Fox News and lie about it and the Fox News Moderator doesn't ask any tough questions, he just agrees with them and nods solemnly and makes some sort of comment about how this is an important issue that is tearing away at the fabric of America. Totally Bogus!
I like John's hypothetical about the college kids who are so passionate that they risk being convicted of a federal offense and a felony just to drive from poll to poll to sway an election. Ridiculous, ineffective and never going to happen. Chances are some colege kid will hack into the computer voting system instead.
Finally, my arguments are well-reasoned, informed and logical. I am arguing in a forum which is soooo biased against me and I'm fighting against more than one opponent. It's kind of like being in a debate and having the audience cheer wildly because your opponent just cleared his throat.
So for me, it's no-holds barred.
Name-calling is a well established, traditional form of political debate. It's "precedent" as PMB is so fond of pointing out.
Plus it gets people out of the polite little mask the wear in public and gets them to say what they really think.
Plus when people are being obtuse, it just drives me nuts and I have to let off a little steam.
Plus people need to learn to be less sensitive. By the time we're through here, John will have a finely honed killer instinct that will serve him well in the practice of law.
Plus it's fun and I'm good at it.
No holds barred, political debate, complete with name-calling and belittling comments. An American Tradition. So, what's not to like?
State IDs are just as subject to abuse as Federal IDs. I don't want either.
I don't want cops stopping me asking for ID and then throwing my ID away and arresting me for not carrying ID. I handle police misconduct cases, so don't tell me they won't do it. They will abuse any right they are given to stop Mexicans and ask them for ID. They already do it now, and they have no right to enforce immigration laws cuz it's out of their jurisdiction.
And I don't want anybody asking me for my SS# so they can determine my citizenship because they don't have a legal right to it unless they are asking on behalf of the IRS for tax reasons.
I have a question, I am a legal immigrant, I have my permanent residency and green card. I am not a citizen yet though, so I can't vote, right?
Right.
And don't try to go to Ohio and pretend to be John Hullinger in order to change the results of an election.
Because if you do, people will think you're Mexican and they might deport you to Mexico.
And when are they going to build a giant wall between the U.S. and Canada??!!?
Because terrorists have been crossing that border, not the Mexican one.
So why aren't the Republicans asking for a giant wall to keep people from coming in from Canada, eh?
Oh, I forgot --
Most Canadians are white. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
The borders between Canada and the U.S are a lot tougher then before.
As of January you won't be able to go across without a passport. And there are several incident where people have been put in jail for not going through custom even if half of there town is in Canada and the other is in the U.S.
One guy was going to run out of gas and the gas station was 2 roads down in the U.S., so he didn't go through custom. He got caught and went to jail...
That would not have happened a few years ago.
I'm glad the borders are more secure.
Still, no one is calling for a giant wall, right?
Because Republicans think that by spending billions on a wall they can keep the Mexicans out.
It will never happen, but millions of people will probably come out to vote for any candidate who promises to stem the teeming brown hordes from the south, no matter how ridiculous his "solution" might be.
Thanks, Israel, for not calling Becca a poo-head...mature...very good.
PMB-
She didn't say anything "poo-headed" otherwise I might have.
Plus I'm saving all the good insult for when you step out of line...
We have an interesting local election for city council (nonpartisan.)
It involves one candidate who has declared bankruptcy twice and has been convicted of welfare fraud (years ago.)
vs.
A Lesbian Professor with impeccable credentials.
I think it's kind of funny because our city is very conservative yet one of these two will win. Very interesting...
It bothers me that the Welfare Cheat keeps up bringing up the fact that her opponent is a Lesbian, yet the Lesbian doesn't hammer her back for being a welfare cheat.
I must admit that I can't wait to see what will win out, homophobic prejudice or common sense.
I'll let you guys know what happens.
Outta curiosity, who gets your vote, Israel?
I know I have been seing the commecials...I'm actually glad I don't have to vote...I wouldn't know which weirdo to pick...haha
I don't know if I was talking about the same thing, but for the city of Tucson the one guy lied several years in a row on a legal document about going bankrupt.
Probably the Lesbian.
I don't think her being lesbian has anything to do with her ability to do her job. She hasn't been advertising it or anything.
One bankruptcy is OK, but two seems like a bit much and when you add the welfare cheat part to it, i dunno if I can trust someone like that with millions in taxpayer dollars.
Welfare, multiple bankruptcies, I find that interesting in light of the book I'm reading right now. The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens. Any of you smart boys ever read it? It focuses on the legal system and debtor's prisons of Dicken's day. A very entertaining read.
Also, Israel
Do you remember PMB (Paul Michael Bauer)? Do you know that you met him while you were here? I think he and Tommy were living at the Brooks when you stayed there. He is the most kind, sweet, soft-spoken, sensitive, sensible, sincere Christian young brother in our church. I know you'd be very polite to him face to face. He probably remembers you that way. Do you remember him?
Ok.
Is this the guilt trip part of the program?
Because I warn you, my mother-in-law and my wife are Chinese and I have been guilt-tripped by experts.
If PMB doesn't want to engage in written combat, he doesn't have to. But if he does then he gets both barrels same as everybody else.
By the way, I have been far harder on John, so he shouldn't take it personally. I pounded on John non-stop during fantasy football season all last year back when he was still a Republican, and he is still alive and he has gotten stronger.
Nothing personal, no hard feelings, I hope.
How come nobody ever feels sorry for me? My political beliefs get attacked by everyone and I have no allies.
How do you know I'm not crying myself to sleep at night?
(Sniff!)
[billclinton]I feel your pain.[/billclinton]
:bites lip:
Also, remember when you were here and you thought we were all nice? It wasn't some masks we were all wearing.
You are not fighting more than one opponent. Take a deep breath and tell yourself, "They are not all against me. They are my friends." You are coming off as slightly paranoid there.
WE don't want you or anyone else to be harrassed because of race. We are all happy that you think of us as family, we feel that way about you, too. We don't show our love by belittling others though. That seems strange to us, as I believe it would to most people of at least average intelligence.
It must be a coastal thing because it seems like something New Yorkers might do also.
Your political beliefs would have me crying, too.
:)
I'm thinkin' maybe your wife and m_I_L are no better guilt trippers than the rest of us females out here, but rather that maybe you just give them SO MUCH MATERIAL!
Note to Christine and her mom
Keep up the good work! I know it must be tiring but you'll get him straightened out eventually. lol.
Awww, shucks, Sharla. That's really sweet (no seriously...I'm not being sarcastic).
Meh...I didn't have to inject my opinions here and can take some good-natured jabs since I asked for it by speaking up. :-)
Israel, I remember meeting you at Zion's bachelor's party...everybody stayed up and watched Toy Story or something...good times.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.
As for your concerns about me being belittling:
Only you can decide whether or not something is a personal insult. Only you can decide whether or not someone else has the power to belittle you.
You can take something personally and decide to be insulted, or you can respond in kind and have fun with it. I'm a fan of the latter approach.
The Frair's Club (in NY) has been "roasting" people for years. It is considered a great honor to sit in front of an audience and be horribly insulted by your friends. If you take things personally, you miss the whole point.
Please understand you have to have a good sense of humor and a great deal of self confidence if you want to debate "hot button" issues with me.
PMB seems to have a great sense of humor and I think he can handle himself quite well in any kind of debate.
If I'm wrong, all he needs to do is tell me, and from now on it'll be the "kid glove" treatment from me. It won't be as much fun, but it won't end with somebody's psyche battered beyond repair either.
I remember Tommy.
I am racking my brains to remember PMB, but I'm really bad with names, it was a long time ago and all you nice white people from Ohio look the same to me.
Sorry...
PMB is the one who looks like a character from a Norman Rockwell painting.
Quote from Sharla:
He is the most kind, sweet, soft-spoken, sensitive, sensible, sincere Christian young brother in our church.
Israel's response:
HE IS ALSO A POO-POO HEAD.
"PMB is the one who looks like a character from a Norman Rockwell painting."
OH LIKE THAT NARROWS IT DOWN!
You guys are all wholesome-and-rosy-cheeked- looking-like-you-drink-lotsa-milk-blonde Poo-poo heads.
I am not a poo-poo head, and I look nothing like PMB, so hrmph!!!
Well, one out of two ain't bad, Shanny.
hmmm, I never thought I looked like PMB, so what are you sayin', JohnyBoy?? (And don't forget that I will be in Ohio soon, and I hold grudges..... ) ;)
ahem... err... :clears throat: ... :stretches collar: ...
Hey! Who posted using my name!?
This just in:
Welfare Cheat declares that she is "God's Candidate."
I guess I have to vote for her now. If I don't, I will apparantly go directly to Hell without passing "Go" or collecting 200 dollars.
So often, Dilbert is both funny _and_ timely.
Dilbert: 10/27/2006
You and John are the "smart people" right?
Just checking...
Oh, no.
I didn't mean it as a jab or anything.
I just love Dilbert, saw it had some relevance to our little debate here (having fun with this BTW) and decided to share.
Scott Adams is a genius.
His blog post today is hilarious and thought-provoking.
check it out here
Wow guys - I can feel the heat!
You all are Totally hysterical....listen to yourselves. You sound like a bunch of little kids - "my truck is bigger than yours!"
Hmmmm....Norman Rockwell & Poo-Heads... Sorry guys - I know you are all trying to sound oh so intelligent being the lawyers and computer gooroos that you are, but to me it's merely a comedy.... :)
You guys are great - keep it up!!
We're glad we could entertain you.
So who are you?
It's probably my sister.
She asked for you blog address a few min. ago because things are slow at Browns with nothing to do.
Hey!
Here's the deal with yesterday's debate.
This is how it should have gone.
John- "Why do we require ID's when dangerous felons who are convicted of gun crimes try to get guns, but not when people vote? That's intellectual hypocrisy."
Israel- "Because guns can be used to kill people."
John "Oh. OK."
Instead John decided to go the "voting kills people too route."
And that's when I just snapped...
My B.S. tolerence meter was just way, way, way too low yesterday and apparantly I was in a nasty mood.
Normally I can tolerate all manner of absurdity when it comes to arguments, but for some reason, yesterday I just couldn't.
What I should have said was "That is such a ridiculous position that it doesn't merit a response."
Then I should have just taken an aspirin and gone to bed.
I have made ridiculous arguments before and known that they are ridiculous when I am making them, but I have always made them because it was my job to do so and I had no other choice.
If opposing counsel tells you that your arguments are a load of horse manure, and you know that they are, there is nothing wrong with conceding that fact as long as you are off the record and it doesn't prejudice your client.
For the record:
Admitting something that is as plain as the nose on your face can actually gain you credibility and goodwill with opposing counsel that can prove beneficial to your client later on.
I am not a gun control advocate at all. (John knows that.) But for some reason I was just so angered and insulted by the horse manure that was being peddled, that I just plain lost it. Hence the subsequent insults and name calling that were probably a little too harse, even by my standards. It was "unacceptable" to steal Gabriel's favorite word.
John, I say this after a good bit of calm deliberation.
If after our debate, you can't see that there are some real problems with an argument that relies entirely on comparing a real public safety issue like denying guns to violent felons to some completely imaginary threat to our elections system then, all I can say is --
Good luck!
^^ (Translation)
"I bit and argued for a side I don't agree with and was shot down...but...it doesn't count because the argument was dumb in the first place." :-)
I know!! We can give Israel a new nick name - DAC for Democratic Ann Coulter.
*at this point Israel's head explodes*
ROFL, Paul Michael!!! You are too funny!!! (How come I never knew that about you, I've been friends with your sister for years!!???)
John won't need "good luck" regardless of how much sense his argument makes or does not make. There are plenty of successful people on both sides on any of these arguments. Consider Paul Bagalla, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, and Glenn Beck to name a few.
To the average mind like mine, you both make as much sense as any of them.
Which translates to John makes perfect sense to me and Israel makes no more sense than Alan Colmes!
:)
It is interesting to try to understand why the liberals among us think the way they do though. I'm starting to think it must be a whole different America from birth for someone born with brown skin. When Zion lived here I didn't think so. He seems exactly the same as the rest of us, as did Israel when he visited.
Of course most democrats are white and I know some darker skinned republicans, so I'm still not understanding Israel's point of view yet. I am still trying to though. :)
Israel said
ummm...
it's fairly obvious to me that you can't kill anyone with your vote, whereas you can kill lots of people with your gun.
Does that help distinguish it for you?
We've all owned guns all our lives and none of us have ever killed anybody. Our guns have never even killed anyone.
People voted in people who put bad judges in power and now millions of innocent babies have been slaughtered. Millions. Not with guns. With votes.
Sharla:
I find that argument utterly absurd.
Your whole voting is an inherently dangerous activity that kills people is technically referred to as an "absurd non sequitor."
Non sequitor means "It does not follow."
I guess you have determined why we deny felons the right to vote, because they might go out and kill people with their vote.
It all makes sense now.
Seriously, you don't see the absurdity in the argument that giving a dangerous felon the right to vote is the functional equivalent of handing him a gun?
"Oh my gosh!! call out the SWAT team!! a felon is attempting to vote and people will surely be killed as a result!!!"
That scenario doesn't sound stupid to you???
I must truly be from another planet.
Are you guys trying to be ridiculous? Or do you believe you are actually making logical arguments and valid reasonable points?
If y'all believe "votes kill people," so we need to issue an ID to prevent this from happening, y'all are either being disingenous with me, disingenous or with yourself, or you have some sort of cognitive deficit.
That's all I can think of...
PMB-
"I bit and argued for a side I don't agree with and was shot down...but...it doesn't count because the argument was dumb in the first place." :-)
The actual translation is: "I stand by every single point I made. I am sorry for calling you an idiot. I should have called you a moron because an idiot has brains and just doesn't use them, a moron is completely lacking the intellectual capacity to be anything other than what he is."
translate that...
Israel
JohnH said:
"Oh but a vote can kill. Isn't that what the left has said about Bush and the war in Iraq? According to the Dems, all us red-staters who voted for Bush have the blood of Iraqi children on our hands."
Israel said:
Can I have your source on this?
Or did you just make it up for rhetorical effect?
Because it sounds like more Fox news propaganda addled, brainless Republican B.S. to me...
"The Bush voters have blood on their hands. It is time to remind them of the stain which is on their hands forever."
"Anyone who votes for people capable of supporting these policies has blood on their hands."
"Neocons and Bush supporters. Your hands drip with the blood of dead Iraqis. May god [sic] have mercy on your souls when you meet at the pearly gates. Think you'll get access?"
It took me all of five minutes to find those three links and paste them onto this page. I made a comment that I knew was absurd. Yet I also know enough about libs to know that it was true. You can come up with the most absurd form of logic you can think of and, sure enough, there are libs somewhere who actually believe it.
I don't want people who have broken laws deciding who makes those laws until they have paid their debt to society.
I also have yet to see a single legitimate argument why asking a voter to see his drivers license is intimidation. When you walk into the polls, what is the first thing they ask you? "What is your name?" That is asking for identification in its most basic form. You HAVE to identify yourself in order to vote. Asking for verification of that identity is not an infringement of rights. It is a protection of rights.
We all have a friend from church who will remain nameless who is not the brightest to say the very least. I will call him Casey.
Some of us were laughing about how Israel thinks we are all brainless morons and I brought up the question that if he really does think we are completely stupid, why does he bother to chat with us? We would none of us bother trying to explain our point of view to Casey. Who would waste their time? Shan and most of you know who I'm talking about. Would any of us go out of our way to talk to Casey. Let alone try to convince him of anything? No. If if sees us in the mall before we see him we are friendly. Occasionally we might buy him a hamburger or something, but try to carry on a serious conversation with him or even just joke around? On a regular basis?? Would he get ANY of our jokes?
We wonder at Israel spending any of his time bothering with us lowly morons. I am sure we should feel very priveledged!
I for one am dumber than a box of rocks. I am so ignorant and unlearned that when I was pregnant I thought that first mass of tissue inside of me was Jessica. I didn't know it was just tissue and I had evey right to kill it. All the intelligent people know that was actually part of MY body. Come to find out it had nothing to do with Gary either. Just part of my own body. Boy am I dumb!
I thought Non Sequitor was a comic strip.
John:
So what you are saying is that you can just make things up and then you can just look on the internet and find someone who has said something similar and then claim that "the Democrats said this." Right?
Because if that's how you want to set the ground rules then I can say that Republicans and Bush supporters say that Hitler was right and that all minorities should be eliminated.
I can guarantee you that I can find someone who voted for Bush or is a Registered Republican, who has made that argument on the internet.
By the way:
Saying someone has "blood on their hands" is a figure of speech. It is not the same as saying you literally killed someone with your vote.
It is not meant to be taken literally. It does not mean that actual people have actual blood on their actual hands and that they should go wash their hands.
If I were to actually kill someone with my vote (say by wadding up my vote card and stuffing it down somebody's windpipe so that they asphyxiated and died, and then taking that votecard and voting with it, then it might be said that I had literally killed somebody with my vote. (maybe)
Or if the people who voted for Bush took their voting cards and gave someone a thousand papercuts so that they bled to death, then maybe your "votes kill people" argument would be literally true.
I can honestly say that guns are used to kill people every day, not indirectly, not as a figure of speech. If you give dangerous felons guns real people will end up literally dead.
I hope that helps clear things up...
And what I mean by "good luck" is that if you try making that kind of argument in front of a Judge, you'll be lucky if you don't get laughed out of the room.
P.S.
1) Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that you have to have a drivers license to vote.
2) Creating useless requirements to keep people from voting is a long time-honored tradition. In the South they used to give Blacks "IQ tests and Civics Quizzes" which were specifically designed to make sure they flunked.
3) If you can not give me one specific example to justify changing the system, then why change it?
I repeat, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
We have plenty of other things that need to be fixed that Republicans are completely ignoring ie. Campaign Finance reform, Health Care reform and meaningful education reform.
What they want to fix instead:
1) English as the official language. (Those other funny languages hurt our ears)
2) Keep illegal aliens from voting. (Big Problem according to John)
3) Flag Burning Amendment. (It causes pollution.)
4) Prayer in Schools (as long as it's Christian prayer, none of that Jewish or Muslim stuff in the Good Ol' USA)
5) Get America Officially Declared a "Christian Nation." (Because God will like us more if it's official)
6) Post the 10 commandments in the Courthouse. (Because it will keep people from lying, cheating and stealing.)
Sharla:
Good question:
The truth is, If I only communicated with people that were really intelligent I'd have no one to talk to and I'd be lonely.
Adding to John's citations on the "lethalness" of votes, I quote Isreal (for the 2nd time) from an earlier comment in this thread.
A bunch of votes in the hands of retarded Republicans can definitely end up [...] killing the wrong people
...then later...
Your whole voting is an inherently dangerous activity that kills people is technically referred to as an "absurd non sequitor."
...so...which is it? Did you "vote for it before you voted against it?"
PMB-
The first one was a joke which apparantly you didn't get.
My apologies to retarded people (I think this is my second such apology this week!) as retarded people usually have more sense than to register Republican.
Nice try though...
“1) Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that you have to have a drivers license to vote.”
Article 1, Section 4, U.S.C.: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.”
Now that I think about, the constitution doesn’t say anything about registering to vote either. Hmmm, I think I’m just going to show up at a random precinct on Election Day and tell them I want to vote. When they ask me for my name, I’ll tell them that I will give them my name when they show me in the Constitution where it says I need to tell them my name. Think they’ll let me vote?
I have asked this question several times and have yet to get an answer. So I’ll say it slowly…
How… does… asking… to… see… an… ID… limit… a… person’s… right… to… vote?
It doesn’t. And bring the Constitution into the debate doesn’t help your argument. You try to make that point in front of a Judge and you'll be lucky if you don't get laughed out of the room.
How… does… asking… to… see… an… ID… limit… a… person’s… right… to… vote?
IT DOESN'T, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T DENY THEM THE RIGHT TO VOTE IF THEY DON'T HAVE ONE OR DON'T PRODUCE ONE.
IT DEPENDS ON THE SORTS OF REQUIREMENTS SET UP TO GET THE ID, DO YOU NEED TO SHOW ANOTHER I.D. TO GET THE FIRST I.D.?
DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A STABLE AND PERMANENT ADDRESS? WILL A LEGAL IMMIGRANT FAMILY OF ITINERANT FARMWORKERS BE ABLE TO GET THAT ID?
HOW DO YOU GET THAT I.D.? DO THEY SHOW UP TO YOUR HOUSE PICK YOU UP AND TAKE YOU TO GET IT? DO THREY ISSUE IT IMMEDIATELY?
DO THEY PAY YOU IF YOU HAVE TO MISS A DAY OF WORK TO GET THAT I.D.? HOW DO THEY VERIFY YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE WHEN YOU REQUEST THE I.D.?
DO YOU HAVE TO BE LITERATE TO FILL OUT AN APPLICATION? WHAT IF YOU ARE BLIND OR HANDICAPPED?
THERE ARE A MILLION WAYS FORCING PEOPLE TO GET AN I.D. THAT CAN MAKE IT EITHER DIFFICULT AND / OR IMPOSSIBLE FOR LOTS OF POOR OR MONOLINGUAL SPANISH SPEAKERS TO GET ONE.
LOTS. YOU HAVE A VERY VIVID IMAGINATION (WITH YOUR COLLEGE KID VOTE FRAUD CONSPIRACIES AND SUCH) MAYBE YOU CAN YOU THINK OF SOME?
The bottom line is we don't need any additional requirements, because...you...haven't
...provided...any...specific
...examples...of...vote...fraud.
Fearmongering doesn't count.
THE "LIBERAL" TAG
It's funny that you guys think I'm so liberal because my liberal friends don't think I am.
1) I am not a proponent of gun control. I think it is important for people to have guns and to learn how to use them (No 50-caliber machine guns with armor piercing bullets, bazookas or ground-to-air missiles though.)
2) I am for capital punishment.
3) I am against gay marraige.
4) I am against unfettered access to abortion. (I am personally very much against abortion. I would advise anyone who was considering getting one not to. I believe there should be reasonable restrictions imposed, and I have contacted anti-abortion groups to try to assist in passing reasonable waiting-time and informed consent legislation. HOWEVER I do not believe it is the government's role to be making medical decisions that would be best left to a woman, her husband and her doctor. If I had to chose between the life of my wife or that of an unborn fetus, I would chose my wife. I would hope that does not make me a murdering baby-killer. I do not believe a fetus has a soul or is a human being until "the quickening" occurs. I do not believe that a sperm and an egg or a collection of fewer than 10 cells equals a human being.
People who are extremists on either side of this issue and cannot see shades of gray or understand its complexity scare me.
5) If the next election rolls around and the two choices are Hillary Clinton and John McCain, I will hold my nose and vote for JOhn McCain.
6) I am against basing public policy on fearmongering and wild hypotheticals. (Just kidding! That last one was for you John!)
I DO BELIEVE:
1) In the separation of Church and State.
2) Freedom of Speech.
3) Freedom of the Press.
4) The right to Privacy.
5) Small Governmment (as small as possible with as few powers as possible)
6) George Bush is the worst President in Modern History and the Republicans are corrupt and don't deserve to control the presidency and both houses of congress. They have failed miserably.
7) Working closely with Israel to fight terrorism intelligently and effectively. What we are doing in Iraq is idiocy.
8) Flossing.
DOES THAT MAKE ME A "LIBERAL?" You decide...
I think it makes me a person who has a modicum of intelligence and makes up his own mind.
DAC,
This argument style is predictable, if nothing else - keep changing the argument until something sticks.
You started by arguing that differences between the lethal implications of voting and packing heat should make bearing guns a special case.
Failing that, you switched to heart-rending anecdotes of how IDs were going to start a KKK resurgence, and thus ID requirements were "bad" for voting, even though the Constitution grants states the right to set election laws and formats including ID requirements.
Failing that, you now assert that the burden of proof is on the pro-IDers because voting fraud doesn't exist and IDs are a red herring (^^ you seem to imply this...or maybe your were just joking ^^).
Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) has whined more about voter fraud than the Democrats/Libs. Every single election, stories of voter fraud get big coverage. One would think that ANY measure that might improve the voting process would be supported by them. Unfortunately, consistency here gives way to the over-arching need to propagate majority fear-mongering. "The evil Republicans want this, and because they hate brown people, it must be bad for you. We can't really give a good reason why, but WE are your friend and will tell you what to think in exchange for your votes since you don't know any better."
The founding fathers were smart reserving certain rights to the individual states. Maybe in California, minorities are mistreated and intimidated out of voting to the point that IDs would give more opportunities for discrimination...so...maybe IDs are bad in CA.
The reality in Ohio is that Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy tried to vote on behalf of the NAACP last general election. It's no wonder that certain groups don't want to clean up the voting process here, pulling the race card when necessary.
People here think you are liberal because Zion told us you were when he came here. Your constant criticism off all things Republican and your lack of criticism of the Dems only reinforces that notion.
P.S.
:-)
^^ didn't see your last post.
Most of your positions there are reasonable and defensible and I pretty much agree with them. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? To this point, I was beginning to think you were a liberal whack-job. Haha.
I still have one question...
How do you feel about frilly toothpicks?
"This argument style is predictable, if nothing else - keep changing the argument until something sticks."
It stems from pure frustration.
When met with people who are "limited" and just don't "get it" You have to change up your argument and try something different until you get to something that "sticks."
You might decide not to discuss cosmologiocal theories with "Casey" after he gives you a blank stare, you might just say "Dat dere moon sure is purdy and shiny, ain't it?"
Frilly toothpicks?
Hate them...
The waste the whole other end of the toothpick, and for what?
I always end up having to pick that frilly stuff out of my teeth afterwards, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of a toothpick, anyway.
Hey! Maybe this will work.
Additional voter ID requirements = frilly toothpicks.
Anyway, I should have known better than to argue vote fraud with John. He's sorta an expert on the subject... (ba-dump, crash!)
Thank you, I'll be here all week...
Ouch. That was below the belt.
"The reality in Ohio is that Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy tried to vote on behalf of the NAACP last general election. It's no wonder that certain groups don't want to clean up the voting process here, pulling the race card when necessary."
Your example is one that is referred to as eassily distinguishable, because Jeffrey Dahmer, Mary Poppins and Janet Jackson never showed up and tried to vote in Ohio.
Some crackhead desperately trying to get some money by registering fake people (who don't exist, celebrities who everybody knows wouldn't be caught dead in Ohio, and famous dead serial killers) does not equal vote fraud that will change an election unless the crackhead tries to show up and vote claiming he is Mary Poppins or Janet Jackson.
How about this, you don't pay crackheads a bounty for every "voter" they sign up?
Problem solved.
Again, nice try.
Saying "you must provide evidence of voter fraud (it doesn't exist)" and then upon seeing such evidence, saying "that doesn't count because he was caught" is really...um...I won't say it...
Research has found that criminals often have higher IQs than the general population.
Apparantly that's doubly true in Ohio. And wow! Brett Farve, Michael Jordan, George Foreman and all these famous people are moving to Defiuance county and registering to vote at the same time. Cool...
Additional voter ID requirements = the useless frilly stuff on some toothpicks.
Again, based on your logic ^^, I could say that minority discrimination at the polls isn't a problem.
Get rid of the bigots.
Problem solved.
...(continued)
Both of those statements are retarded.
PMB-
Show me evidence of the kind of vote fraud that John described.
The crackhead didn't even get anybody actually registered on the rolls. He submitted cards for people like Jeffrey Dahmer, Brett Farve and Dick Tracey. That isn't evidence of anything except how stupid crackheads are in Ohio.
People showing up claiming to be someone else and voting in their stead. That's what John described and that is what I want to see from you as evidence.
Nothing?
Thought so.
Keep looking...
You are the one calling for
nationwide change in voting requirements.
The burden of proof is on you.
This burning need is based on what evidence?
The crackhead in Ohio who unsuccessfully tried to get famous people on the voter rolls so he could smoke some crack?
Puh-leeze....
1. We are not calling for nation-wide IDs...this is a state-by-state issue.
2. Don't ask for examples unless you really want it:
Exhibit A
Duran said that in 25 years working in the Otero County Clerk’s office, she has [...]
“...seen and heard all kinds of horror stories, anywhere from someone walking in and signing their names and voting for someone else to, we had 75 people registered to vote at one house,” she said. “It is an outrage that we do not stop the corruption of our precious right with something as simple as showing an identification.”
Exhibit B (Wall St J)
Still, many liberals insist fraud isn't an issue in Pennsylvania. "Show us the fraud," said Elizabeth Milner, chairman of the state's League of Women Voters, urging a veto of voter ID. Well, Donna Hope of Philadelphia can show her, because in 2004 an organizer for Voting is Power, an offshoot of the Muslim American Society, registered her to vote despite her admission that she was a noncitizen. Although she was turned away from the polls for that reason that November, someone eventually voted in her name.
P.S.
Nobody is claiming ID requirements are a panacea for vote fraud. This is just a very simple thing to ask of voters. You can’t say it is any more burdensome than registering and providing a signature in the first place. Most voters already have some form of ID for driving, welfare or whatnot. This doesn’t take much effort and will cut down on a particular type of fraud. The states have the right to do this and it’s not un-constitutional, so why is it such a big deal?
Re: nation-wide IDs.
If you are a proponent of doing it state by state, then you are saying, this is a good thing and all the states should do it, nationwide.
So what's the difference? It's just semantics...
Your second examples are a little better HOWEVER
I too have heard all kinds of "horror stories" lots of them aren't true. I've heard "horror stories" about 911 being orchestrated by the Israeli and US governments. Do I belive them? No. But some people do and would be happy to relay them to a newspaper reporter.
Doesn't make them true.
The problem is that one partisan person with an axe to grind, can and will lie.
75 people in one house? Was that a group home? A nursing home? A homeless shelter? Did these 75 people vote, or were they just registered? Who made these claims? Is this one of those "horror stories."
Anecdotal evidence is notoriously unreliable and that is why I ask for proof. TRhat's why I'm still not convinced this is a huge problem.
Why do you keep insisting people have IDs for welfare? Is there a welfare ID? What does this have to do with anything?
ID or no ID. Welfare fraud happens all the time.
EXHIBIT A
Duran said that in 25 years working in the Otero County Clerk’s office, she has [...]
“...seen and heard all kinds of horror stories, anywhere from someone walking in and signing their names and voting for someone else to, we had 75 people registered to vote at one house,” she said. “It is an outrage that we do not stop the corruption of our precious right with something as simple as showing an identification.”
WHO is DURAN? sounds like it's an "outraged" person with an agenda, how creible are these claims that she's heard "horror stories."
EXHIBIT B
Well, Donna Hope of Philadelphia can show her, because in 2004 an organizer for Voting is Power, an offshoot of the Muslim American Society, registered her to vote despite her admission that she was a noncitizen. Although she was turned away from the polls for that reason that November, someone eventually voted in her name.
Donna Hope sounds like she's full of baloney.
She claims she said she wasn't a citizen and was registered to vote anyway?
Then she claims she showed up to vote anyway and was turned away?
Then she claims someone voted in her stead...
Real likely story, from a source that sounds either really stupid. or shaky credibility-wise...
Where is the follow up, where is the proof?
Likely story...
I was a newspaper reporter and lemme tell you a secret...
people lie to reporters all the time, and those lies get in the paper because lots of times reporters are lazy and don't double-check.
Any convictions for voter fraud? Any documentary evidence? An official investigations? Any real evidence that isn't just anecdotal?
Keep em' coming...
We all know that partisan people can claim vote fraud, where it doesn't exist...
Right John?
PMB's "anecdotal" evidence about actual acts of fraud is no less compelling than your "anecdotal" evidence that ID laws will intimidate minorities.
EVERY election law can be construed as "intimidating." As a actual victim of voter intimidation, I feel somewhat more qualified to speak on the topic than anyone else here. I have endured almost three months of constant interviews, questions and stress all because of a baseless, politically motivated accusation. Producing ID is child's play compared to what I have had to go through.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: You already have to identify yourself when you go to vote; you have to tell them your name and then sign the list. Your monolingual argument holds no water. Should we require poll workers who can say "What is your name?" in 28 different languages so as not to intimidate voters who don't know how to say it in English? Producing an ID is merely an extension of an already accepted practice.
Weak.
Yes, people lie to reporters, but now you are questioning the integrity of the Wall St Journal fact checkers.
Whatever. Now you are just trolling.
You asked for examples. By its very definition, what other form of example is NOT anecdotal? Again, I think you are just trolling now.
WSJ fact checkers? I guarantee you they probably weren't used on that story. They only use them on stories where they are worried about getting sued.
How many Pulitzer's have they won for their political coverage or investigative reporting? The WSJ has been involved in stock fraud insider trading scandals (I knew the guy who wrote the over the counter stock column.) They are a conservative mouthpiece newspaper and all they could find was Donna Hope? Very little credibility nationwide as far as their political coverage goes.
WSJ, They come up with one (probably mildly retarded woman) who claims she was misled, tried to vote (unsuccessfully) and then somebody voted in her stead. Real likely with no documentary evidence to support it.
Fairly easy to go to the registrar of voters and get hard copies of the voter rolls and check it out.
Did they do that? None of that happened as far as I can tell from the story (or was it an editorial?)
Yet this alone is presented as definitive evidence of mushrooming widespread voter fraud. C'mon!?!!??
The Wall St. Journal's unofficial motto is "A paper by Republicans, for Republicans."
Here's the thing, drivers licenses do not prove that you are a citizen or that you are eligible to vote (not a felon, etc.)
No single form of existing ID proves this. Unless you want to create a new form of ID that can be cross-checked with SS#'s (illegal), penal records, etc. then asking for a drivers license serves no purpose.
That ID is useless without the cross-checking and constant updating required to make sure a person is still eligible.
You are talking about spending billions nationwide to solve a problem that doesn't exist. I'm not talking about killing a fly with a sledgehammer here, I am talking about building a 15 megaton bomb to kill a fly that may or may not exist. (Stupid and Inefficient use of resources, better spent elsewhere.)
The voter ID I got in Arizona proves that I registered, and then they mailed an ID to the address I used, and I got the ID.
That's all it proves.
They can ask for that ID and get it or if I've lost it and if they have reasonable evidence to believe that fraud is being committed, they can investigate further.
Fine.
What you guys are proposing, in order to be effective will require fingerprints, background checks, etc. (Can you say slippery slope?) All very intimidating and more than enough to make an already apathetic voting public say forget it, I don't wanna go through with this, I just won't vote.
The bottom line is John's fundamental premise "It is intellectual hypocrisy for liberals to claim that driver's licenses should be checked for gun purchases but not while voting," is fundamentally flawed.
Equating getting a gun without showing ID, with voting without ID and claiming that people are killed by both practices, is just not a very persuasive argument.
That's all I'm saying...
Well, all I'm saying is... I think it's funny to see you calling people crackheads. =)
He was a real, actual, crackhead.
Check out the article, he did it for crack...
And I just thank the Lucky Stars that he was a white Crackhead, not a black one, what with all this talk about vote fraud, Muslims, the NAACP and welfare.
Also, please note that despite his obvious lack of pigment, I did resist the temptation to call him a Crackercrackhead...
Are "Crackerjacks" an ethnically insulting snack?
What about Crackers in general?
Is it bad to eat at Crackerbarrel?
What about Cheese Nips?
Chocolate Flipz?
I just want to be gastronomically correct...
Well, I have called Zion a crackhead for years, whenever I think he isn't using the brain God gave him... and one time Janessa (she was about 3 at the time) told him, "You're a cracker...." and we were all like, what?, and she continued and said, "You're a cracker, I'm a cookie!" That was pretty cute. I know that has nothing to do with anything, but it was really cute, and I miss her alot, so I like to talk about her more that all this political stuff.
And as long as they are Nestle Flipz, they are GREAT!!!! And Cracker Barrel is right up there with Bob Evans- the poor people who haven't had to good fortune to live in the east don't know what Bob Evans is, but, it's even more awesome than Cracker Barrel!!!!
Cracker Barrel is horrible! The food is garbage and the service is worse.
Post a Comment