It's the right thing to do. "There's no disputing it".
it was a joke
in calling everyone who posts in this thread a bonehead, I was also calling myself one.
No offense meant, just expressing some frustration in a harmless way at being misinterpreted and accused of having a political agenda.
self ban reinstated
Last edited by piney; 01-09-2012 at 06:50 PM.
If that hurts your party more then your opponent party, thats something you need to take up with your party.
For the record, Bit, I'm equally against DIEBOLD machines if DIEBOLD machines are fraudulent as well.
Consistency of ideals is a wonderful thing.
South Carolina is now sueing Eric Holder and his henchmen relative to rejection of the Voter ID requirement.
As as part of the support listed in today's paper here was a report indicating 900 dead people in this state voted in the last major election - 2010. That's what they are able to verify - you know it's more.
In most places they ask for a ID to cash a check. But it is illegal to ask for an ID for voting. Oh it is discrimination. No ID no vote!
I am fine with having an ID requirement for voting if there is no cost in obtaining an acceptable ID. If all options of an acceptable ID are those which have a monetary cost, the system becomes "pay to play" and discriminates against the poor.
Those against it, you do realize you are in-effect supporting voting without any verification that the person casting the vote is a citizen, or the pwerson they claim to be. Is THAT, of all things, what youw ant to be against policywise, and if so, why?
Because it's a "right"? Every right we have has some form of limitation or regulation involved in it's wielding by the individual, rightfully so. You cannot speak with 100% impunity, there are limits and liabillities. You cannot own guns without limits, certainly. You cannot practice religion without limits, etc, etc, etc.
At it's core, proof that you who you claim is fundamental to the very right to vote itself. If proof isn't required, you diminish the power of the vote, the worth of the right, itself.
And more, if proof of ID is too much burden for wielding of that right, what about having to register? Should registration be ended too, as too much a burden?
Again, I fall back on this.....are you really supporting the idea that proving who you are is too much of a burden, and that voting is better when such proof is not requested and no effort is made to fight potential fraud or illegal votes?
All because you think being able to prove who you are...is too costly? How do these amazingly poor people do anything else in life if they're unable to prove, in any form, who they are?
Exactly. If you are an American citizen over the age of 18, you have a fundamental right* to vote.All because you think being able to prove who you are...is too costly?
* No purchase necessary
If you do not register (even if it costs you something to be able to, car ride to get form, stamp to mail it, internet access to do it online, etc) you do not have a right to vote.
If you are a convict, you do not have a right to vote.
If you're a resident of that jurisdiction, you do not have a right to vote.
Is adding "If you cannot prove who you are" asking so much?
I don't think it is. By taking both sides (you agree theys hould prove, but only if there is no cost, and everything that could be used as ID costs something at some point), you're really supporting the status quo, i.e. no id checking.
What improved system do you support that has improved accuracy, but no id check?
Please, define (specificly) what you mean by "pricey".I prefer the status quo over mandatory checking of relatively pricey ID's.
Mandatory ID checks which can be obtained free of charge.What improved system do you support that has improved accuracy, but no id check?
Anything over $0.00 (to the individual) is too much to pay for the constitutional right to vote.Please, define (specificly) what you mean by "pricey".