Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 92     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #121 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
When have I ever complained about Ted Cruz taking heat? 


Sorry pabar, wasn't pinning this on anyone in particular.  Too many Conservatives inside here to remember who's behind a particular theme.  In any event, it was kind of a petty comment on my part but it does drive me a little crazy to hear Conservatives criticize Democrats for lining up to criticize Cruz, or Paul, only to turn around and see an anti-Franken thread born.  Nonetheless, I should have practiced a little self restraint and left left well enough alone.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #122 
It's funny - you and DC have a habit of saying "you" only to have to come back and say you were generalizing.  I guess I would be less confused if you said "people" or "conservatives" but that's your call.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #123 
The only "you" I used in your thread was aimed at the readers.  That said, I understand how a sentence not typed perfectly clear can me misinterpreted.
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #124 
Background checks aside, do you think that a crazy person would be deterred from an evil act because they couldn't get a gun from normal paths? Do you think the thugs in Chicago care about background checks, or further, any established law? Do you think they would reconsider their actions, if they knew that they would be executed within days if not hours, upon conviction of their crimes? Who produces 50% of homicides in our population? It is a 3% demographic that commits over 50% of our nations homicides. Look up the FBI stats. 3% of our population commits over 50% of murders. Why aren't we isolating, and killing these people? We could reduce our countries homicide rate by 50% overnight. Any takers? Bring on the apologist for thug gangsters. Go ahead, defend them socialist. They are after it is all said and done, a product, and a direct result of Democratic policies. What a great society we have evolved into. Thanks LBJ, and fellow Socialist. Now we get to clean up the mess you created, while you rub elbows at cocktail parties, and wonder what went wrong with the grand plan. Bill Smith.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,921
Reply with quote  #125 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
rocklifter - I searched and searched for any investigation in Rockdale County or any evidence that illegal voting was taking place.  I found nothing in all my searches.  I'll try some more later but I'm not convinced there are very many allegations out there nor do I think most of these allegations are true.

pabar - We believe a person must prove who they are in the registration process therefore, your statement, using ForeverInBlues standards, is a lie.  We do want people to prove who they are before they have a right to vote.


http://www.edwardctracey.com/apps/blog/show/19848794-secretary-of-sate-inspectors-called-into-rockdale-county-elections-office-for-possible-attempted-voter-fraud

http://www.rockdalecitizen.com/news/2012/nov/08/provisional-ballots-to-be-counted-at-5-pm-today/

This is one I found right off the bat.
There is more but none of the so called media wanted to try and run with this since the people elected were who was supported to begin with.
I have a source in Rockdale County and there were at least 25 Fed and State investigators involved.
So I disagree again with your summation. This will also bring to an end to this endless drivel.
I tire of what used to be fun and interesting.

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #126 
rocklifter - Not sure if it's drivel but it's clear you and I disagree as to the level of importance that voter ID's are necessary.  Your example talks of some shenanigans going on somewhere but I couldn't see how it related to the voter ID subject, and folks going back into the polling place over and over to vote for dead Aunts and Uncles.  We simply disagree about this being a problem of any significance.  I'm wondering if anyone is serving time for being caught voting a second or third time.  Does it ever happen?  I suppose it must have happened once or twice somewhere but I'm simply not convinced folks will risk becoming a felon in order to vote a second or third time.  I just don't see it and I think this whole issue is being drummed up for other motives.  That's just my opinion.  However, looks like Conservatives are winning at the legislation game, when it comes to the supposed much needed voter ID' cards being required, so not sure why they're even spending the time trying to convince folks like me the legislation is necessary.  I think most rational folks will see through the fog and, in the end, I have no doubt these changes in law will come back to bite Conservatives in the butt.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #127 
I'm leery of the sincerity of anyone disagreeing with the purpose of showing ID to vote....It should be a law....
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #128 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
I'm leery of the sincerity of anyone disagreeing with the purpose of showing ID to vote....It should be a law....


bluedog - Yours would be an excellent argument if one didn't already have to show identification to become a voter in the United States.  Again, show me the cases of people voting more than once and I'll take a closer look to see if this intrusive law makes any sense at all.  While I'm asking, are you for tossing mail-in absentee ballots too? 

It's quite clear these voting laws are brazen attempts to keep those with less resources away from our polls.  I think these citizens are referred to as "low information voters" and the GOP wants no part of them in the polling booth.  North Carolina is taking the lead because they lost a Presidential election to a Democrat for the first time in some 30 plus years.  That was a big wake up call that something needed to be done.  Again, I'll be shocked if more American voters don't become incensed at the methods of the GOP and distance themselves altogether.
rocklifter

Registered:
Posts: 2,921
Reply with quote  #129 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
rocklifter - Not sure if it's drivel but it's clear you and I disagree as to the level of importance that voter ID's are necessary.  Your example talks of some shenanigans going on somewhere but I couldn't see how it related to the voter ID subject, and folks going back into the polling place over and over to vote for dead Aunts and Uncles.  We simply disagree about this being a problem of any significance.  I'm wondering if anyone is serving time for being caught voting a second or third time.  Does it ever happen?  I suppose it must have happened once or twice somewhere but I'm simply not convinced folks will risk becoming a felon in order to vote a second or third time.  I just don't see it and I think this whole issue is being drummed up for other motives.  That's just my opinion.  However, looks like Conservatives are winning at the legislation game, when it comes to the supposed much needed voter ID' cards being required, so not sure why they're even spending the time trying to convince folks like me the legislation is necessary.  I think most rational folks will see through the fog and, in the end, I have no doubt these changes in law will come back to bite Conservatives in the butt.

Please explain why one person, one vote is wrong.
Why should voters not be required to show ID?
The logic nakes no sense.

__________________
I voted for Trump. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #130 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocklifter
Please explain why one person, one vote is wrong. Why should voters not be required to show ID? 


It's not wrong.  We are in complete agreement with regards to one vote per person.  You must qualify as a citizen, register with identification, and then your name shows up at your polling location.  Vote once, check off your name with your signature, go home, and then wait for results.  Done deal.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #131 
Dewey, I've tried to stay out of these arguments.  You have to understand that the opinion of many and not just on the right is that multiple votes are cast by people.  For instance the Poll Worker in Hamilton County that voted several times.  I heard her say in an interview that she often voted several times, was not the only poll worker in Hamilton County to do so and saw nothing wrong with it because it was important for her candidate to get elected.  How about the lady who voted multiple times in Brownsville Texas?  The FBI caught her and so, she is going to jail.  What about the Mayor's Election in Detroit where both candidates are claiming fraud in voting with the write in votes?  In fact, if you look up voter fraud, you'll see that in a lot of Mayoral elections, if the D loses, they claim some type of voter restriction because write in votes or absentee votes are tossed out without due process.  They should give that due process since most of those thrown out aren't registered or aren't alive.  How about the 86 year old woman in Minnesota who was charged with voter fraud for voting multiple times in the last elections?  Are you suggesting that it doesn't happen?  The left's statement that there is no evidence of voter fraud is akin to "a lie told often enough becomes the truth."

I think it sad that to buy alcohol, get a driver's license, open a bank account, buy cigarettes, ... you are required to produce an ID.  However, to vote, that requirement is unthinkable by the left.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #132 
CoachB - The poll worker was crooked and ID's wouldn't have stopped her at all.  She had access to ballots and simply signed off on her relatives names.  In any event, I'm sure there's a case or two out there but nothing anywhere near to a level requiring this added ID requirement.  I repeat you must show ID to be eligible to vote and there is a cross reference at the polling place.  Besides, don't you agree that criminals will simply ignore the law and get fake ID's or just use their relative's ID to vote in their place?  Criminals won't obey these laws, will they?

OK, maybe we had 18 or so extra ballots cast last year.  I don't really have any idea but it must be very rare.  You want to make it harder for everyone because of a couple of individuals?  Does this mean you want to get rid of absentee ballots too?  Then we can go on and talk about the fewer days to vote, fewer polling places, etc., and get to the bottom of why these steps are being taken as well.  Then again, not really necessary for me and millions of other citizens.  One doesn't have to be the sharpest crayon in the box to understand what's taking place.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,181
Reply with quote  #133 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedog
I'm leery of the sincerity of anyone disagreeing with the purpose of showing ID to vote....It should be a law....


I have voted by mail in every election for at least the past 20 years.  So has my DD since she was old enough to vote.  She even registered to vote online.  My 87 yo mother who no longer drives votes by mail.  Servicemen stationed away from home vote by mail.

Are you proposing that this can no longer occur?  I have never voted more than once in any election.  [wink]

__________________
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," - John F. Kennedy
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #134 
Other than servicemen stationed oversees and the invalid there should be no mail in ballots. If the right to vote is not important enough for you to get off your butt and go to the polls a couple times a year you don't deserve to vote.
__________________
#SCOTUS
YAY!!is GAF
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #135 
I'm against any mail-in votes....
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #136 
Last election, the votes of our military personnel stationed outside the US, were challenged by Democrats. That's right, the Democratic party challenged the absentee ballots of US servicemen, and women. They filed legal briefs, and suits to stop their votes from being counted. Why is that? Because somehow, the government employees in charge of getting ballots to our servicemen and women, found it difficult to get them ballots in time for their votes to be returned on time to legally qualify as voters. Happened when Bush and Gore were in an election year. Democrats bent over backwards to have soldier's votes excluded. Hypocrisy, and Bill Smith.
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #137 
Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
Last election, the votes of our military personnel stationed outside the US, were challenged by Democrats. That's right, the Democratic party challenged the absentee ballots of US servicemen, and women.


I'm not sure this post is accurate.
spazsdad

Registered:
Posts: 5,078
Reply with quote  #138 
It's pretty much common knowledge servicemen overseas have either not had thier votes counted or had the validity of their absentee ballots challenged by the Dems in past elections.
Sorry, my link button is broken

__________________
#SCOTUS
YAY!!is GAF
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #139 
spazsdad - It's common knowledge rules were questioned during the Florida recount but woody said "last" election.  I'm still questioning the accuracy of that part of his statement.

2000 - County elections officials, Republican and Democrat alike, agree that overseas ballots have always been thrown out in large numbers for the same kinds of technical violations cited this weekend, though the voters who cast them were unaware of it because the process had never before been subjected to such scrutiny.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #140 
Breaking news in the St. Louis area.  5,200 voters are "kept on the rolls" in East St. Louis to ensure that certain political candidates/parties win elections.  These claims are being denied but it appears that there are many dead voters currently voting there.  More to come. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #141 
CoachB - I didn't see any proof, or even credible suggestion, that even one of those voters has voted.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #142 
Dewey, I am in season coaching and so, haven't been able to watch the news and/or read the paper.  The Election Judge was asked why these were not taken off of the roll and apparently, that has been asked several times.  This is not a new thing.  You and I will never know if they are voting.  That city is another world and believe me St. Clair County knows what goes on there.

You might have missed this from the article cited above in post #141:

"Former East St. Louis City Council member Michael V. Collins was convicted of vote fraud in 2010. Charlie Powell Jr., former East St. Louis City Council member and former chairman of the East St. Louis Democratic Central Committee, was convicted of vote fraud in 2005."


There is a massive political machine that runs all of those communities around East St. Louis and they routinely make the news during elections. 
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #143 
The push for a delay in Obamacare's individual mandate by the GOP has encouraged me to repeat a question I've asked in many different ways.  To date, only one or two Conservatives have submitted a clear answer.

How can Conservatives so easily excuse others from buying health insurance only to turn around and ask me to help pay for their bills should they become sick?  Is that a Conservative solution?  If not, what part am I missing?

Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #144 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
As for those without insurance, nobody should pay for them. Actually, liberals should, if they feel that strongly about it. Would you opt in to a voluntary donation program for the uninsured?


FIB - If the uninsured are treated, somebody will be paying for it.  Your answer clearly implies those who refuse to take the necessary steps to be self reliant should expect the consequences.  In the case of somebody with the funds to afford insurance choosing not to, only to learn later they need medical care, I assume you mean no treatment, which we both know could lead to serious harm and/or death.

With that in mind, I fully understand the thought process behind those supporting the "consequence" solution but I would hope your side could equally understand how many like me can't reach this same conclusion. We can all agree that folks should take responsibility for their own fate and we can all agree it's unfair to ask the rest of us to unnecessarily subsidize others with our hard earned funds.  That said, rightly or wrongly, many of us can't support your tougher position.  Therefore, it becomes our obligation to offer up an alternative solution.  That solution is to require people to pay as they go in order to relieve others from eventually picking up the tab.  That goes for health insurance, old age insurance, and old age security.

Around here the new phrase has become "intellectual dishonesty".  This subject we're discussing makes for a good example where I think we fail at being honest.  Democrats are equally for self reliance just as we equally agree our earnings should not be used to unnecessarily subsidize others.  Any talk that we're for a nanny state or we're for asking people to pay for those some of you call moochers, imo, is intellectually dishonest.  Our differences are primarily in the solutions and this is where the debate should remain.

I think the fact we have Obamacare, SS, and Medicare, fully illustrates our solutions are preferable among the vast majority of Americans.  I understand that doesn't make many on the Right happy but it shouldn't lead them to believe we care any less about self reliance.  It simply means allowing the irresponsible to suffer dire consequences is not a solution we're capable of accepting.  Instead, we have an alternative idea that reaches the same goal while making us much more comfortable.  I say let's debate the merits of our two solutions as opposed to accusing one side of being against something they're not.  I think it would be more honest.

PS:  To answer your question, if my pay as you go scenario cannot be a solution, and we're left between letting people "go" or requiring me to put up a donation for their care, I'd have to go with the latter.  Of course I wouldn't be happy and I'd keep pursuing the Democrats idea of a "pay as you go" solution.  Thanks for the exchange.




ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #145 
If you're trying to be honest, how can you claim Obamacare is "preferable among the vast majority if Americans."

That is deception, at best, and flat out not true in any case. It further invalidates your post.

You don't seem to know that an intellectually honest discussion must begin with honesty. Lol
JoiseyGuy

Registered:
Posts: 24,434
Reply with quote  #146 
Attitudes of Americans since beyond  WW2 can be explained rather easily.  If it comes out of my pocket, I'm against it.  If it comes into my pocket, I'm for it.  No other value seems to trump those two perspectives.  Our proud nation was formulated on other values.     Frank


__________________
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking. Where it is absent discussion is apt to become worse than useless." Leo Tolstoy

"Do not try to teach pigs to sing. It will frustrate you and infuriate the pigs who will unite in anger against you, and you will never achieve singing your song". Dr. Petersen
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #147 
56% of the public wants to delay the individual mandate - 26% are opposed.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/july_2013/56_favor_delaying_individual_health_care_mandate_26_opposed

Even among Democrats, 43% prefer a delay and 35% are opposed to a delay.
bluedog

Registered:
Posts: 9,979
Reply with quote  #148 
Quote:
Our proud nation was formulated on other values.     Frank


The history books teach this, but, was it really?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #149 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverInBlue
If you're trying to be honest, how can you claim Obamacare is "preferable among the vast majority if Americans."


FIB - I went to great lengths to clearly define our two solutions, as they're being debated in America, and then you try to twist my words.  I'll repeat, it is clear this nation prefers the mandatory "pay as you go", "pitch in", "contribute when you can" solutions found in our SS, Medicare, and Obamacare programs, to enforce a more self reliant society, than the alternative option of "let them suffer" or "let them die" type of consequences for those who choose to be unconcerned about saving for their own health and security obligations.  No legislation allowing for this latter and much harsher solution has been, or likely ever will be, accepted as an answer by our nation.

Once again I'll say it's clear the reason we have these three social programs is because the vast majority of society has chosen one solution over another.  We've spent decades looking for a solution to health care in this Country, partly because it's not our place to unnecessarily subsidize others, and ignoring treatment for the irresponsible is an unacceptable avenue for most.  If you quote the results of a poll against Obamacare to suggest otherwise, then you're the one being misleading.
ForeverInBlue

Registered:
Posts: 9,882
Reply with quote  #150 
Did society decide Obamacare was the answer to health care or did the Democrats impose it on society? How many Republicans voted for it?

And I'm done, better things to do today than rehash yet another topic.

PS - if you think the "vast majority of Americans" favor Obamacare, you are clueless to reality, and immune to the constraints of honesty.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.