Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar New Posts Chat
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
bhblue

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 1,108
Reply with quote  #1 
I'm interested in hearing from those on here who support this administration in general.  Where do you fall on this issue and why?  I'm trying to understand how our elections have had any validity in the past without such requirements. 

Obama administration blocks Texas voter ID law
TheHammer

Registered: 08/09/04
Posts: 11,135
Reply with quote  #2 
Because he knows that all illegals support him.
spazsdad

Registered: 07/10/08
Posts: 2,491
Reply with quote  #3 
The article says 11% of the Hispanics do not have ID. How do you function in today's society if you have NO form of identification?
I have never understood the argument that it disenfranchises minority voters. Maybe it disenfranchises fraudulent voters.The fact that they are living off the grid speaks volumes.

fhoenix

Registered: 07/23/11
Posts: 3,746
Reply with quote  #4 

I don't support this administration and am counting down the days til romney is in office...but I also do not support "changing the rules at the last minute".

Obama did not win texas. Clinton did not win texas. No Democrat has won texas since 1976 when good ole boy Jimmy carter won texas and swept the south. Had all the SE but virginia. Also this was last time republican won california. Incumbent president ford defeated Ron reagan for republican nomination and lost to washington outsider and grits and gravy jimmy carter (former govenor of georgia). So Texas is not an issue for republicans. We have always won texas and it would take a redneck democrat to win it again. 

 

It's pitiful that we didn't always require id to vote in the past but since we did not it is unconstitutional to deny legal citizens to vote all of a sudden based on new criteria. Wisconsin and other states also had judges vote voter id laws down as unconstitutional. We need to require id as national law and give all citizens time to be compliant and then enforce it nationwide by 2016 election.


__________________
‎"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." -- Abraham Lincoln
PatGillickProtege

Registered: 07/20/06
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #5 

I've been saying it for years.  Round up the illegal spics and send them back to whatever $hithole country they came from.  They do not belong here unless they have documentation to prove it.  98% of them can't speak english or write in english and it's not our job to educate them.  If you climbed over a border fence, swam across the Rio Grande River that is a natural boundary between Mexico & the United States or if you crawled thru a sewer and popped a manhole cover on Gotham Street in Chula Vista, California; face facts --- YOU DO NOT BELONG IN OUR COUNTRY SO GET THE F**K OUT NOW!!!!  You are a drain on our resources and you pop out kids like rabbits like you think an anchor baby should be the reason we keep you in our Country.  Leave now.  Come back when your documentation is in order.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
PatGillickProtege

Registered: 07/20/06
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fhoenix

I don't support this administration and am counting down the days til romney is in office...but I also do not support "changing the rules at the last minute".

Obama did not win texas. Clinton did not win texas. No Democrat has won texas since 1976 when good ole boy Jimmy carter won texas and swept the south. Had all the SE but virginia. Also this was last time republican won california. Incumbent president ford defeated Ron reagan for republican nomination and lost to washington outsider and grits and gravy jimmy carter (former govenor of georgia). So Texas is not an issue for republicans. We have always won texas and it would take a redneck democrat to win it again. 

 

It's pitiful that we didn't always require id to vote in the past but since we did not it is unconstitutional to deny legal citizens to vote all of a sudden based on new criteria. Wisconsin and other states also had judges vote voter id laws down as unconstitutional. We need to require id as national law and give all citizens time to be compliant and then enforce it nationwide by 2016 election.

We should check ids in Illinois especially in Chicago where DEAD people vote 2 and 3 times and all those that are not registered living in the ghetto on the South Side get paid cash, cigarettes, & bottles of night train and mad dog 20/20 just to keep the Dems in power so they keep giving them free stuff.  This cycle of dependency has to be broken.  Either these people are too stupid to understand that they are being used or they are just in it for the gravy train.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
woody

Registered: 12/06/05
Posts: 4,828
Reply with quote  #7 
The number of illegal aliens residing in Texas and border states, and registered to vote using the motor voter law introduced by Bill Clinton is huge. Our state has always had a large Hispanic population, but the number of illegal aliens has quadrupled. It is noticed by the advertising agencies, utility companies, and State and local agencies, why would they prefer to speak in Spanish rather than English? Why are schools overrun by non English speaking students? Why should illegal aliens be allowed to vote? This is a privilege allowed to citizens. The Obama regime is corrupt, and throws up legal roadblocks to any state that attempts to circumvent their unconstitutional attempt to let illegal aliens participate in, and sway the outcome of our states, and nations elections. I offer any Liberal on this forum to disprove my statements. This is unconstitutional, and borders on treason by appointed officials. Please feel free to debate my point of view. 
__________________
Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #8 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
I offer any Liberal on this forum to disprove my statements. This is unconstitutional, and borders on treason by appointed officials. Please feel free to debate my point of view. 

woody - I don't have the answers you're probably looking for but I have three comments I'll make. 

1)  What if nine legal citizens, without ID's, are refused an opportunity to vote for every illegal immigrant we can stop?  What if it's only two to one?  Is that a good result?  Having the masses being put out in order to catch a small minority of offenders generally doesn't go over well in this Country, (think airport security).

2)  The fact the last Administration, with control of both houses for several years, never put up a Federal ID law, leads me to believe there are more negatives than positives to such a law.

3)  Is anything truly unconstitutional if it isn't ruled unconstitutional by a Court?  Speaking of Constitutional, I'm going to try a past question with you once again and see if you'll respond this time.  In a "woody world" of no Medicare, does the Government require private insurance companies to sell health insurance policies to old folks? 

spazsdad

Registered: 07/10/08
Posts: 2,491
Reply with quote  #9 
Dewey,
I will ask you how does one function in society these days without ID? I can't imagine trying to go day to day without my ID as it is asked for constantly. They say there are thousands of minorities that this would disenfranchise. How do they get along in their lives if they don't have it already?
Do you think it is out of line to require people to show proof of who they claim to be when voting? I do not as voting is not something that should be taken lightly. What is gained by not having to show ID?

bhblue

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 1,108
Reply with quote  #10 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

1)  What if nine legal citizens, without ID's, are refused an opportunity to vote for every illegal immigrant we can stop?  What if it's only two to one?  Is that a good result?  Having the masses being put out in order to catch a small minority of offenders generally doesn't go over well in this Country, (think airport security).

I'm sorry Dewey, but these are absurd hypotheticals IMO.  However, I'll play along and say that, whatever the ratio you put forth, if you do not have valid identification, you can't vote.  At the very least, it would help to validate our election process.  The thought of organizations like Acorn, having a list of the voter rolls, picking up the homeless and giving them $5 and a sandwich to vote democrat as "John Smith", who is deceased, sickens me to no end.

Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #11 

spazsdad - I suspect there are tens of thousands or more of legal citizens without photo ID's.  As for an ID being out of line, explain why the last Administration failed to address this issue.  If you are asking me if photo ID's should be required at time of registration, I really have no problem.  I can't say the same with regards to photo ID required on election day.  Finally, how about you?  In a world without Medicare, does Government require private insurance companies to sell policies to old people?  (Please forgive me as each time I provide my answer to a question, I may ask for another answer in return.)

Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #12 

bhblue - I'm going to have trouble if any legal citizen is denied his/her most precious right, the right to vote, because they don't have, can't find, just lost, had it stolen, or failed to get a photo ID.  By the way, where I live we sign our name above our address to vote.  Where do these homeless folks sign their name on election day or is California different in this process?  (OK, I see you're having them sign above someone deceased.  Hard to believe what you'll put this Country through for something that must be extremely rare if not non-existent.)

woody

Registered: 12/06/05
Posts: 4,828
Reply with quote  #13 
1)Yes, those that are citizens of the United States have months, if not years to establish a legal voters registration card, and prove they are that person with a government issued photo ID. These are the same disenfranchised voters that have direct deposit of their SS checks into the bank account they opened, and were required to show valid identification and SS number to do so. If they are an illegal alien, and opening a bank account, they are required to show a taxpayer ID number, and photo ID. Also, an adult, without a valid photo ID, or passport with photo, and boarding pass cannot get through an airport security checkpoint, but you can vote, multiple times, at multiple polling locations? I call major hypocritical Leftist BS on this. (No offense to BS)

2) I, and Liberals like you blame Bush for a lot of things. I blame Bush for being a NE Liberal trying to be liked, as opposed to being a leader. He appeased the illegal voter base in Texas, and other states. What is your point? Do you approve of illegal aliens voting in our elections? Yes or no answer would be appreciated.

3) Nope, insurance companies could sell based on actuarial tables. Old folks pay lots of money for life insurance, why?? Because they are going to die, and the insurance company would have to pay off over a short term, instead of a long term. Go ahead, mandate coverage of the elderly, and watch your own policy costs quadruple to make up for the mandate. You are already witnessing this in the HC bills ordering of Insurance policies to cover lifetime students living on Mom and Dads couch, and preexisting conditions. The HC bill will be ruled illegal, whether it is a fine, a tax, or a penalty. The Government cannot by edict, tell private enterprise, nor citizens what they will pay for.

__________________
Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #14 

Thanks woody.  To item number three and your "no" answer, I would say a lot of good the Ryan plan would be if you had a Government voucher and insurance companies were not required to sell policies to people say 70 years or older.  For those of you who wonder why Democrats find the Medicare program to be an exceptional element of society, there's another reason. 

woody

Registered: 12/06/05
Posts: 4,828
Reply with quote  #15 
I didn't say older folks would be prevented from buying insurance, it would be at an elevated price due to the certainty of treatments being used, at a rate proportionate to their age. To offset this, insurance companies being mandated to cover them, would raise rates on everyone else to cover the gap. To involve the government offers an elevated risk of fraud, multiple layers of bureaucracy, and an even greater overall cost of health care.

Hey, how did we get to health care and insurance coverage, from a thread discussing voter ID laws?? Care to discuss the content of the threads origins, or deflect?

__________________
Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #16 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody

Hey, how did we get to health care and insurance coverage, from a thread discussing voter ID laws?? Care to discuss the content of the threads origins, or deflect?


I have to do whatever I can to find answers to my questions too.  In any event, it now appears you agree Government can mandate private enterprise to sell a product to our citizens.  Can the Govt also set a maximum price level or will these companies simply raise the rates too high to afford for this high risk group? 

Now back to your questions, did I miss one?  Between you, spazsdad, and bhblue, I think I made my stance perfectly clear.
PatGillickProtege

Registered: 07/20/06
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey

spazsdad - I suspect there are tens of thousands or more of legal citizens without photo ID's.  As for an ID being out of line, explain why the last Administration failed to address this issue.  If you are asking me if photo ID's should be required at time of registration, I really have no problem.  I can't say the same with regards to photo ID required on election day.  Finally, how about you?  In a world without Medicare, does Government require private insurance companies to sell policies to old people?  (Please forgive me as each time I provide my answer to a question, I may ask for another answer in return.)

If they can't afford the id and can prove who they are there are states that give them the id for free.  End of f**king conversation.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
woody

Registered: 12/06/05
Posts: 4,828
Reply with quote  #18 
I said nothing of the sort. I said that the courts would find it unconstitutional to tell companies, and individuals what they could do. Stick to the voter ID thread, or start a new thread devoted to the constitutionality of the commerce clause, fines, fees, and nooo not taxes, in relation to insurance.
__________________
Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
PatGillickProtege

Registered: 07/20/06
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #19 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
I said nothing of the sort. I said that the courts would find it unconstitutional to tell companies, and individuals what they could do. Stick to the voter ID thread, or start a new thread devoted to the constitutionality of the commerce clause, fines, fees, and nooo not taxes, in relation to insurance.

Woody - do you think that King of the Censorship Board/Mouthpiece for the Abomination Administration is going to answer your direct question?  With him it is deflect, ignore, change direction, and spout off something irrelevant.  We know his playbook already.  It has been so overused over the years.  Keep hammering away at having him answer you and if he doesn't that shows he doesn't want to admit you are right and that his answer is completely the opposite of what the American Citizenry wants.  I wish I was running a campaign against him.  I'd hammer and chip away at his boorishness and wait to have my questions until hell freezes over if that was the case.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
PatGillickProtege

Registered: 07/20/06
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #20 

 

This is the definition of everyone who voted for Obama.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #21 
woody - I thought I answered your question regarding illegal immigrants voting.  Nobody wants that and there is a Federal law against it.  However, the solution is a bit more difficult.

There's an attitude in this Country that it's preferable one hundred guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be convicted.  We've created laws to protect the innocent and I believe that same attitude is applicable here.  I'm for stopping the illegal voting but not at the expense of legal citizens being denied one of the most important rights we're given.  Same day picture ID will result in such a scenario and considering, as I do, that voter fraud is far more insignificant than it is being presented here, I believe it's a bad idea.  That said, and like bhblue commented with regards to illegal voters, I'm sickened by the many guilty folks who go scot-free but I ultimately understand the alternative.
woody

Registered: 12/06/05
Posts: 4,828
Reply with quote  #22 
No Dewey, you appolagise for an AG that blocks states from stopping, or lowering illegal aliens from voting. This is a big thing in some states, but in many, not an issue. This is indeed a cut and dried issue. Legal citizens of the United States have documents that prove they are legal residents, illegal aliens do not. All the states are asking, is that you prove by photo ID, that you are the person showing a voter registration card to vote. It is a very easy issue. It cannot be danced around, you either are a citizen, and can vote, or you are an illegal alien, and if you still wish to vote, you can go home and vote in Mexico where you are a citizen.
__________________
Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
BillSmith

Registered: 08/07/04
Posts: 5,418
Reply with quote  #23 

Dewey-

 

The coin does have two sides. There are plenty of instances where government restricts a citizen's rights, some that are in the same breath as the right to vote.

 

One of those is the right to bear arms. While I can, the State of California and the Federal Gov't severely limit the manner in which I can.

 

My right to move about freely was tested this past week when the PM of Israel decided to wander about Silicon Valley. Not that I don't understand, but you get the idea.

 

If I serve this country as a soldier, sailor, pilot or other capacity beholding to the DoD, all my rights as a citizen are trampled. Can't speak freely, can't have a weapon of my own choosing on a military base, can't move freely, etc.

 

Agree with you that for this election, changing the rules would just be more two-party politics. However, our neighborhoods are no longer the havens of known peoples of a common bond. Once upon a time, those registering each voter greeted them by name. That's changed. Identification seems a logical course of action.

 

To defend myself, my weapon must be documented.

To speak my mind at a city council meeting, I must be documented.

To own property, the title demands documentation.

To vote...why not trample some more?


__________________
Bill Smith
West Bay Nuggets
NorCal Women's Fastpitch Summer League
info: nuggetsoftball@aol.com

Sometimes you are the mole, sometimes the mushroom.
woody

Registered: 12/06/05
Posts: 4,828
Reply with quote  #24 
Some of the weapons one acquires over their lifetime, are neither documented, nor is there any real means of  a government doing so, nor are they in my mind, entitled to do such. This goes far beyond, blued metal. Free Men, and Citizens of this Republic should ask no permission from a political state, to exercise their God given rights. 
__________________
Matthew 27:51

And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
bhblue

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 1,108
Reply with quote  #25 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
  I'm for stopping the illegal voting but not at the expense of legal citizens being denied one of the most important rights we're given. 

Some rights come with some responsibilities.  I have a right to own and drive a car, but am required by law to carry liability insurance to protect my fellow citizens' lives and property.  Failure to do so is not only unlawful, but irresponsible.  Shouldn't there be laws requiring those interested in voting be responsible enough to obtain some form of identification in order to protect the sanctity of a process that affects their fellow citizens?
spazsdad

Registered: 07/10/08
Posts: 2,491
Reply with quote  #26 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey
  I'm for stopping the illegal voting but not at the expense of legal citizens being denied one of the most important rights we're given. 

Some rights come with some responsibilities.  I have a right to own and drive a car, but am required by law to carry liability insurance to protect my fellow citizens' lives and property.  Failure to do so is not only unlawful, but irresponsible.  Shouldn't there be laws requiring those interested in voting be responsible enough to obtain some form of identification in order to protect the sanctity of a process that affects their fellow citizens?

You may have a right to own a car but it is not a right to be able to drive one.
Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #27 
bhblue - We could make a law where you can be asked to take off your shoes or walk through a body scanner prior to boarding an airplane.  If we do decide on such a law, I hope there's a very significant reason for doing so.  The level of voting fraud is not significant enough, imo, to require same day photo ID and possibly denying others their opportunity to vote.  I've already said I'm not opposed to proof of identity at time of registration.  You know, I'd like everyone to undergo a two week background check before purchasing a weapon but some find this too intrusive.  This law might delay your rights but not deny them.  Once you miss the opportunity to vote, election is over.  

Edit:  I added "the level" of voting fraud is not significant.    
bhblue

Registered: 05/15/08
Posts: 1,108
Reply with quote  #28 
spazsdad - Fair enough, but that doesn't change my point.

Dewey - What would constitute "significant" to you?  1%? 5%? What are you basing your opinion on?  ANY voter fraud is too much IMO, and while I know these laws won't end all of it, they will help. 

If someone has an ID at registration time, are you saying it's too much to ask of them to be responsible and be sure you have it when you come to the polls?  If they aren't responsible enough to do this small thing, I'm not going to be sympathetic when they miss their "opportunity" to vote.  Have the Progressives totally abandoned the idea of personal accountability?  Not taking a jab, just asking.
PatGillickProtege

Registered: 07/20/06
Posts: 4,364
Reply with quote  #29 

Quote:
Originally Posted by woody
No Dewey, you appolagise for an AG that blocks states from stopping, or lowering illegal aliens from voting. This is a big thing in some states, but in many, not an issue. This is indeed a cut and dried issue. Legal citizens of the United States have documents that prove they are legal residents, illegal aliens do not. All the states are asking, is that you prove by photo ID, that you are the person showing a voter registration card to vote. It is a very easy issue. It cannot be danced around, you either are a citizen, and can vote, or you are an illegal alien, and if you still wish to vote, you can go home and vote in Mexico where you are a citizen.

I for one am in favor of revoking Dewey's citizenship and sending him to Mexico. Deport 1 liberal for every 1 illegal we deport.  What a wonderful country we would have.


__________________
Keep 'em moving Colonel, a man that eloquent has to be saved.
Dewey

Registered: 08/08/04
Posts: 15,937
Reply with quote  #30 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bhblue

Dewey - What would constitute "significant" to you?  1%? 5%? 

I'm not going to be sympathetic when they miss their "opportunity" to vote. 


bhblue - I respect your concerns but still disagree.  I would not deny someone who just had their wallet stolen or personal effects destroyed by weather/fire the right to vote simply because of a concern that is minuscule in its significance.  I've never heard of voter fraud effecting an election to date and I suspect any votes cast illegally likely cancel themselves out.  I think it's up to your side to prove there's significant damage being done before we put the folks to all this trouble. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.