Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#702 Aug 21 2013 at 2:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
So if there's more ID laws, there will be less cases of voter fraud, right gbaji?


The word you're looking for is fewer. I'm assuming this is your attempt at "lol gotcha!" because there are so few confirmed cases of voter fraud. But that's because it's nearly impossible to catch someone committing voter fraud. Want to know why? Because if you don't require ID, and you let people register right then and there, and your policy is to simply accept the word of the person that they are who they claim to be, a person has to really be stupidly blatant about it in order to get caught. Fraud at the voting booth is only even investigated if a poll worker takes the time out to file a complaint about someone who voted. And to do that, he's got to have a reason to suspect that one of the thousands of people who'll go through the line at that polling place is lying about who they are. How's that going to happen exactly?

We have close to no way of knowing how often voter fraud of this sort is committed. And that's the problem. My question is: Why is requiring an ID such a burden? Seems to me the only reason to oppose this is because you want people to be able to vote without any method to determine if they should be. I wonder why someone would want that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#703 Aug 21 2013 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming this is your attempt at "lol gotcha!" because there are so few confirmed cases of voter fraud.


Remember that time during the second presidential debate when President Obama welcomed Governor Romney to argue his point about Benghazi? Yea.............

Gbaji wrote:
Because if you don't require ID, and you let people register right then and there, and your policy is to simply accept the word of the person that they are who they claim to be, a person has to really be stupidly blatant about it in order to get caught. Fraud at the voting booth is only even investigated if a poll worker takes the time out to file a complaint about someone who voted. And to do that, he's got to have a reason to suspect that one of the thousands of people who'll go through the line at that polling place is lying about who they are. How's that going to happen exactly?


Sooooo.. what exactly is the problem with early voting?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#704 Aug 21 2013 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's also impossible to tell how many invisible elves are being brought over the border which is why everyone should be willing to submit to full cavity body searches. I mean, it could be billions of invisible elves daily but we can't prove them so this is the only logical course of action.

The fact that we have some dudes sponsoring us who really love performing cavity searches has nothing at all to do with it.
Quote:
Fraud at the voting booth is only even investigated if a poll worker takes the time out to file a complaint about someone who voted. And to do that, he's got to have a reason to suspect that one of the thousands of people who'll go through the line at that polling place is lying about who they are. How's that going to happen exactly?

Using my boundless authority as an election judge: you're an idiot with no idea how the process works.

Edited, Aug 21st 2013 3:13pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#705 Aug 21 2013 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Requiring an ID without a program to enable people to get id's is a problem It's a problem when the demographic that will be affected by this law are ones who vote against you.

People have straight up admitted the purpose of these laws is to restrict voting and make it easier for their side to win elections.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#706 Aug 21 2013 at 2:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If Republicans gave a shit about making sure poor people had state IDs, they would be making concentrated efforts to get them those IDs.


The law requires the state to provide a free ID to anyone who asks Joph. There are no barriers in place. Barring Republicans going down in person and holding people's hands while the go get an ID, what more do you expect?

Quote:
They don't because Republicans don't want those people to vote.


No. We don't because we believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility. We believe that government's role is to create an environment in which opportunities are available, but leave it up to the individuals to take advantages of them as they wish and to live their own lives. We believe in removing obstacles from success, but not in handing success to people. If people choose not to avail themselves of free state issued IDs, that is their choice. Who are we to force them to do otherwise?

Also, there's nothing in place that prevents someone else from assisting people in getting IDs if they really care about this so much. Like say, Democratic GOTV efforts. So I'm not seeing the problem here. Unless there's some reason why needing to get an ID to vote might reduce the number of people the Dems could get to vote for them? Want to speculate as to why that might be the case?

Quote:
Which is 100% the idea of passing the ID laws in the first place.


Making sure that only people who are supposed to vote vote? Yes. That's 100% the idea behind passing these laws. One might question why this is such a huge problem for Democrats.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#707 Aug 21 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Requiring an ID without a program to enable people to get id's is a problem


There is a program to enable people to get IDs. But the program doesn't include the government driving around in buses and picking people up off the streets and taking them to identification centers. Cause that would be kinda draconian, wouldn't it? But by all means, you go propose that if you think that's a good idea.

Quote:
It's a problem when the demographic that will be affected by this law are ones who vote against you.


You turn that around and it's even more problematic though, isn't it?

Quote:
People have straight up admitted the purpose of these laws is to restrict voting and make it easier for their side to win elections.


If by "restrict voting" you mean "prevent people who shouldn't be voting from voting" you're correct. Um.. You get that our laws already "restrict voting", right? The problem is that we don't have any means of enforcing those already existing rules.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#708 Aug 21 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming this is your attempt at "lol gotcha!" because there are so few confirmed cases of voter fraud.


Remember that time during the second presidential debate when President Obama welcomed Governor Romney to argue his point about Benghazi? Yea.............


The time when the entire country saw just how biased the media could be? Yes. I do remember that. Thank you Crowley for proving what Conservatives have been saying for decades now.

Quote:
Sooooo.. what exactly is the problem with early voting?


I already wrote about this. They are two separate issues btw.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#709 Aug 21 2013 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
If by "restrict voting" you mean "prevent people who shouldn't be voting from voting" you're correct. Um.. You get that our laws already "restrict voting", right? The problem is that we don't have any means of enforcing those already existing rules.

No, I definitely mean restrict voting. The new laws make it much harder for people who should be allowed to vote to vote. nothing else. You can talk all you want about fixing a non existant problem. It's ********* and you know it. The laws are being put in place purely to try and stop people who generally vote democrat from voting. They'll try to pretty it up, but that's the case. Incredibly some people have admitted this is the case.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#710 Aug 21 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming this is your attempt at "lol gotcha!" because there are so few confirmed cases of voter fraud.
To no one's surprise you assume incorrectly. The got'cha is in that the places with more strict voter registration laws (Kansas, for example) are where a higher concentration of those confirmed cases of voter fraud occur, not in the less strict ones (Let's go Pennsylvania). Of course, considering your whole argument in that mess of a brain **** you try to pass off as logic or even thought it doesn't matter because you can just plug your ears and scream "It doesn't matter because you can't prove it DIDN'T happen!" Which, is such a convenient argument for you to have.

But hey, small government is all about making the government enforce things that you can't even prove exist as a problem, right?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#711 Aug 21 2013 at 2:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The law requires the state to provide a free ID to anyone who asks Joph.

No, they won't. They'll provide a card if you're over 70, legally blind, had your drivers license revoked or can prove homelessness with a letter from a qualified director of a care facility.

If you're simply poor, homeless and not in a shelter, etc you don't get a free card. Furthermore, to GET a card even if you qualify/pay, you need to provide your social security card plus two more forms such as your birth certificate, marriage license, passport, etc. All things your average homeless guy keeps in his shoe, I'm sure.

Beyond that, NC is offering the IDs "for use in voting" which doesn't guarantee that they'll be valid identification for anything else you claim will lift the people up such as opening banking accounts, job applications or whatever.

So while I know you think saying "How come Democrats don't want this... HHHMMMM????" is a real clever argument, it doesn't do anything to wave away the plain fact that this law was created as a hurdle to prevent homeless and low income people from voting. I guess the real question is why the GOP is so against that.

Oh, wait... that's not a question at all. They'd rather win elections than have people exercise heir constitutional rights.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#712 Aug 21 2013 at 2:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
But hey, small government...
The biggest irony in this whole thing. I'm always amazed to what degree political parties can twist these kinds of things around.

We comparing this to gun ID laws yet? Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#713 Aug 21 2013 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,237 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
We comparing this to gun ID laws yet? Smiley: popcorn


How dare they require me to register in a national database just to exercise my right to vote. Having a national database of voters is just one more step toward them hunting us down, taking away our votes, and putting us in prison.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#714 Aug 21 2013 at 2:55 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
There is a program to enable people to get IDs. But the program doesn't include the government driving around in buses and picking people up off the streets and taking them to identification centers. Cause that would be kinda draconian, wouldn't it? But by all means, you go propose that if you think that's a good idea.
In the megalopolis that is Rapid City the location where one gets their ID is about 3 miles out of town. So for people with no car I'd say less "draconian" and more "helpful".

Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The law requires the state to provide a free ID to anyone who asks Joph.

No, they won't. They'll provide a card if you're over 70, legally blind, had your drivers license revoked or can prove homelessness with a letter from a qualified director of a care facility.
In South Dakota you still have to have the $20. In regards all the birth certificates, etc.? They cost money, too.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#715 Aug 21 2013 at 3:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:

The time when the entire country saw just how biased the media could be? Yes. I do remember that. Thank you Crowley for proving what Conservatives have been saying for decades now.


Lolgaxe didn't take the route that I thought he would, but you're arguing that we should enforce more laws so criminals will follow them. You argued the EXACT opposing sentiment in gun control. Hypocrite much? People aren't against mandating IDs, but not ensuring that everyone has one. No need to bother trying to get out of your contradiction, because you have already proven yourself too cowardly to admit to any contradiction. *cough*Zimmerman *cough*

Gbaji wrote:


I already wrote about this. They are two separate issues btw.


Was it the response to my bait, that you fell for, and conveniently did not respond to your contradiction?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#716 Aug 21 2013 at 3:23 PM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
But hey, small government...
The biggest irony in this whole thing. I'm always amazed to what degree political parties can twist these kinds of things around.
Well, "small government" is actually code for "one party system." Which, isn't wrong because one is smaller than two. Well, technically one is smaller than three, but no one really takes those other guys serious.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#717 Aug 21 2013 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Well, technically one is smaller than three, but no one really takes those other guys serious.
They're actually a front to distract people from the comming Wombat based Coup and takover. The revolution will be Marsupialized!

Smiley: wombat

Supreme Dictator for Life Kaolian

Dictated, not read.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#718 Aug 21 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
But hey, small government...
The biggest irony in this whole thing. I'm always amazed to what degree political parties can twist these kinds of things around.
Well, "small government" is actually code for "one party system." Which, isn't wrong because one is smaller than two. Well, technically one is smaller than three, but no one really takes those other guys serious.
Well, zero is less than one!

See what we need to do is ban political parties altogether; then only the uber-rich will be able to afford a Senate seat. No more of this playing games with the upper middle class puppets. Run on your own money or GTFO.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#719 Aug 21 2013 at 3:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Having a national database of voters is just one more step toward them hunting us down, taking away our votes, and putting us in prison.

No way, 'cause I'll have my ID.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#720 Aug 21 2013 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Protein wrote:
Run on your own money or GTFO.


I always wondered why no one looks at someone who spends millions of dollars on a campaign with a sense of concern. "You want me to trust you with budgeting our money?". I would attempt to run primarily off of free means, i.e. youtube, twitter, facebook, etc. Of course, I wouldn't get elected like that either, so I can see why people do it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#721 Aug 21 2013 at 4:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
When i'm supreme dictator, everyone with "lie" in their name will have to wear a warning hat.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#722 Aug 21 2013 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm assuming this is your attempt at "lol gotcha!" because there are so few confirmed cases of voter fraud.
To no one's surprise you assume incorrectly. The got'cha is in that the places with more strict voter registration laws (Kansas, for example) are where a higher concentration of those confirmed cases of voter fraud occur, not in the less strict ones (Let's go Pennsylvania).


Um... Maybe because when you have voter ID laws, you can actually catch people attempting to commit fraud? Seriously? That never occurred to you?

OMG! So if we start requiring bars to check people's IDs before serving them alcohol, the number of people caught attempting to buy alcohol while underaged will increase? Alert the **** media! That's just crazy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#723 Aug 21 2013 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,947 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If you're simply poor, homeless and not in a shelter, etc you don't get a free card. Furthermore, to GET a card even if you qualify/pay, you need to provide your social security card plus two more forms such as your birth certificate, marriage license, passport, etc. All things your average homeless guy keeps in his shoe, I'm sure.


Um... All things that are required to prove your identity in the first place. What's your point? What's the alternative? We just let anyone walk up to a polling place and say "I'm here to vote" and we hand them a ballot? At some point, we have to have some method to ensure that only US citizens who haven't had their voting right revoked for some reason are actually voting. What method would you propose?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#724 Aug 21 2013 at 5:31 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,501 posts
gbaji wrote:
That never occurred to you?
It occurs to me that you want ... well, the people who tell you what you want, what they want is to enact laws based on paranoia. I mean, you might as well say we should build laser towers all along the coasts because there just might be aliens spying on us and we'll need them to prevent a possible extra-terrestrial invasion. After all, you can't prove there aren't aliens spying on us.

Well, go ahead and tell us how you're not a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#725 Aug 21 2013 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Um... All things that are required to prove your identity in the first place. What's your point?

That you were wrong when you said the state gives a free card to anyone who asks?

Pretty sure I made it fairly well, too.
Quote:
What method would you propose?

Given the lack of actual voter fraud, many states already have working solutions that don't require trying to stop poor people from voting. Feel free to look into them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#726 Aug 21 2013 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
what they want is to enact laws based on paranoia.
They were totally going to enact Sharia law in Kansas, it's a good thing it was stopped when it was.

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#727 Aug 21 2013 at 6:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
Gbaji wrote:
What method would you propose?


Making the voting registration card a picture ID that is acceptable to vote with. Create a time line that allows people to use biometrics to prove who they say they are. That way, a poor person can literally register/re-register to vote, be given a temporary card, ID validated by biometrics, given new voter ID card, free of charge and hassle of the voter.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#728 Aug 21 2013 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,614 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That never occurred to you?
It occurs to me that you want ... well, the people who tell you what you want, what they want is to enact laws based on paranoia. I mean, you might as well say we should build laser towers all along the coasts because there just might be aliens spying on us and we'll need them to prevent a possible extra-terrestrial invasion. After all, you can't prove there aren't aliens spying on us.

Well, go ahead and tell us how you're not a paranoid conspiracy theorist.



I've also got this Tiger-Repellent Rock, if you are interested in buying.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#729 Aug 22 2013 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
******
44,501 posts
That'll look great next to the Verrazano bridge I just bought!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#730 Aug 23 2013 at 7:00 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
I like how the right conservative is trying equate other cases to the Zimmerman trial.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/all-in-/52823605#52823605
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#731 Aug 31 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,084 posts
There goes his integrity.
The wife of George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer acquitted in the killing of Trayvon Martin, has been sentenced to one year probation and 100 hours of community service after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor perjury charge for lying at her husband's bond hearing.

Shellie Zimmerman, in court Wednesday, admitted that she perjured herself before Judge Kenneth Lester at an April 22, 2012, bond hearing for her husband. At that hearing, she told Lester, who was then presiding over her husband's case, that the couple had little funds.

But in a court filing, State Attorney Angela Corey said Shellie Zimmerman perjured herself by failing to reveal that George Zimmerman had collected more than $100,000 through Internet donations.

George Zimmerman instructed Shellie Zimmerman on how to transfer money from his bank account into hers and his sister's while he was in jail in April 2012, according to recordings of jail calls released by the Florida State Attorney's Office. According to an affidavit, Shellie Zimmerman transferred more than $74,000 to her personal account days before the April bond hearing. Nearly $50,000 was transferred to an account held by Zimmerman's sister.

Taped phone calls between the couple revealed that they had discussed the money transfers in code to hide the funds, according to the affidavit. Prosecutors allege that Zimmerman and his wife talked about $10, $20 and $100 to mask the fact that they were referring to thousands of dollars. The calls also showed that George Zimmerman instructed his wife to "pay off all the bills," including payments to American Express and Sam's Club.

Lester ruled on June 3, 2012, that Shellie Zimmerman had "testified untruthfully" about their finances. She was later arrested on June 12, 2012, and jailed briefly in Seminole County before posting a $1,000 bond.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
stupidmonkey, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (33)