It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Voter I.D. Law in North Carolina Stands !

page: 6
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: guohua

It's not your constitutional right to buy alcohol like it is to vote so what does that have to do with anything.





posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

At one time in Early America, Beer was more available and drank more than water.
I have a Constitutional Right as a Law Abiding Citizen to Own a gun, I have to show an I D to purchase one Don't I ?

Uncross your arms and hang your head in shame,,, it didn't work out for ya,,,,'


Alcoholic beverages played an important role in Colonial America from the very beginning. The Mayflower brought more beer than water as it departed for the New World. While this may seem strange viewed from the modern context, it should be understood that drinking wine and beer at that time was safer than water - which was usually taken from sources used to dispose of sewage and garbage. Their experience showed them that it was safer to drink alcohol than the typically polluted water in Europe. Alcohol was also an effective analgesic, provided energy necessary for hard work, and generally enhanced the quality of life.

Link

In 1790, United States government figures showed that annual per-capita alcohol consumption for everybody over fifteen amounted to thirty-four gallons of beer and cider, five gallons of distilled spirits, and one gallon of wine.

Americans thought alcohol was healthful. To their minds, drink kept people warm, aided digestion, and increased strength. Not only did alcohol prevent health problems, but it could cure or at least mitigate them. They took whiskey for colic and laryngitis. Hot brandy punch addressed cholera. Rum-soaked cherries helped with a cold. Pregnant women and women in labor received a shot to ease their discomfort.
Water, on the other hand, could make you sick.

Drinking in Clolnial


The first thing to consider when discussing the drinking habits of the Founding Fathers is the quality of water to which they had access. An obvious lack of proper sanitation and water treatment meant those who lived in cities didn’t have the cleanest water to drink. And without the Internet, they couldn’t even check Wikipedia to find out how to purify the dirty water they did have.

According to 18th-century history website Archiving Early America, alcoholic beverages like beer, rum, and wine were much preferred over plain water. Beer was even considered a food rather than a beverage, and was a common substitute for water at many a meal. Apparently, not much has changed!

But here’s the thing: Back then, people believed water was bad for your health. So, if you were given the choice between a tasty alcoholic beverage and water that may, or may not, be free of certain contaminants known to collect where human beings reside in large numbers without indoor plumbing, which would you choose? Exactly.

The other thing to remember about alcohol vs. water is the fact that booze could be stored for years, if necessary. If there was ever a water shortage or any sort of water-borne epidemic, the booze was there to consume. It was also available to take the edge off certain uncomfortable procedures like tooth extractions, amputations, and wedding anniversaries.

Read more,,, I'd have to bet, early America was a lot like Germany when I was there, No age limit for buying alcohol.
The Flask
Not to change the subject of the OP.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: defcon5




Nowhere in the constitution does it say you must provide a photo ID to Vote, only that you be a citizen.


And nowhere in the Constitution does it say you must have a drivers license to drive! What is your point? We are not talking about the Constitution we are talking about a possible new law as it relates to voting....



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: guohua

I didn't need the history lesson on beer, the point is that comparing needing an ID for beer or liquor or for driving in the same sense of needing one to vote is apples and oranges.
Voting is a right, driving and being able to drink are privileges.
Big difference.


edit on thSun, 10 Aug 2014 01:24:21 -0500America/Chicago820142180 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Alright then fair enough, can you defend this?

Non-citizens caught voting in 2012 presidential election in key swing state




Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office found 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election -- and has referred the case for possible prosecution.

The alleged crime would be a notable case of voter fraud in a key swing state. By law, only American citizens are allowed the privilege of casting ballots for the nation's leaders.

Ohio officials say that did not stop some from getting around the system.


Okay perhaps this?



As part of Ohio's efforts to clean up the voting rolls, election officials discovered that more than 257,000 dead people were still listed as active voters. Their names and status, Husted said, have since been removed.

In addition, election authorities note they have drastically reduced the number of duplicate registrations, from 340,000 in 2011 to just four this past November -- and that more than 370,000 Ohio voters who have moved have been contacted to update their voting information.


How about these 2 women can you defend them?


The new investigation comes after election officials secured several voter fraud convictions stemming from last year's election in Ohio, including that of one poll worker who was accused of voting six times in the November presidential election.

Melowese Richardson, 58, is serving five years in prison after being convicted of four counts of voter fraud. Prosecutors said she repeatedly had voted in the name of her sister, who has been in a coma since 2003, and that the illegal votes Richardson cast were counted in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections. She also was accused of illegally voting in November's election in the names of other people, including her granddaughter India Richardson, who told Fox News that "it wasn't a big deal."

A Cincinnati nun also pleaded guilty to illegal voting as part of the ongoing voter fraud investigation.


Fox News


Now what was that you were saying about NO VOTER FRAUD?

Are you aware that to take any College prep or board exam such as the SAT, GMAT, the, Nursing Boards, Medical Boards, and a state licensing exam of any kind, you are required to present a photo I.D.?

Why do you think that requirement is in place? It is to insure that you are who say you are, and that no one can sit for the test in your place! If someone does this, it means THEY CHEATED!

WHAT IS SO FREAKIN HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT? Spare me your Right wing Rhetoric. if wanting someone to show their photo ID to prove they are a legal citizen and holds all people to the same standard in order to prevent voter fraud, then call me the Queen of right wing nut jobs, I wear my crown proudly if we get an honest vote!

Regardless who wins!

For you to not see the logic in this blows my mind!

pax




edit on 8/10/2014 by paxnatus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: paxnatus

Defend what? I've only stated facts to you. So, no, I don't have to "defend" any cherry-picked example you think proves something.

But, let's look at what you're offering:

What is so "freakin'" hard to understand about statistically SIGNIFICANT and INSIGNIFICANT numbers???

In your example of Ohio Presidential Election 2012 ... (which by the by, you offer no source for You went back and added it after my post, thanks!) ... the number is 17 votes out of 5,580,822. That is 0.000305% of the votes cast! Why is it statistically insignificant? Because that's 3/10000ths of a vote!!!

But wait, I'm sure the next response would be "in a close race every vote counts!" Sure, that sounds logical, but the FACTS are that Obama beat Romney in Ohio in 2012 by 166,214 votes. So your 17 votes are 0.010228% of the total that Obama beat Romney by. Your 17 votes represent 1/100 of a vote in that scenario.

Does the fact of insignificance start to come clear?

BTW, here's your link from Fox News: Fox Article - "Non Citizens Caught Voting ... "

What else do we find in your article? (And please don't argue that Fox News is not an extremely biased political source ...)



"I have a responsibility to uphold election law, and under both federal and state law you must be a citizen to vote," said Husted, a Republican who has aggressively tried to investigate voter fraud cases in his state.


And all that "aggressive investigation" turned up 17 votes out of 5.8 MILLION!

One wonders how much that investigation cost the People of Ohio, but I'm well aware that governmental fiscal responsibility is only of concern when it suits political agendas. (Which is a big part of the overall problem with our system, but I digress).

All of your other quotes come from the same Fox News article, so we don't need additional citation here.

Mr. Husted cleaned up the voter rolls and got rid of bad registrations? Good for him, he's doing his job.

Dead people on the rolls is, once again, NOT VOTER FRAUD.

A nun and a poll worker cast 8 or so bad votes. Half of your 17? The article is regrettably short of facts. Divide the miniscule numbers above and ask yourself what happens when you divide insignificant by 2.

(By the by, your glorious Voter ID solution wouldn't have stopped the poll worker.)

Now, I know, that you enjoy Fox News, Pax ... but see, the issue is with politically biased sources you only get the part of the story that advances a given agenda. You remember those statistically insignificant 17 votes you and Fox were trumpeting above?

Let's look at the additional facts LEFT OUT of the Fox article:



Reporters who are brighter and less dishonest than Shawn have come away from the Husted data with a different take. There was, according to Husted, no plot to steal votes or fake votes in the 2012 election. The noncitizens who voted had driver's licenses, so basic voter ID laws wouldn't have stopped them.


That's from Slate magazine.

We have to go all the way to that Neo-Communist MSNBC to get the ACTUAL QUOTE from Mr. Husted:



“This seems to be an act of individuals,” he said. “There does not seem to be any evidence of a concerted effort to register non-citizens.”


Hmmm ....

SO, in a state where the Republican SOS is doing everything he can to find evidence of the "massive" voter fraud plaguing the US, this is what is found. Nothing of significance, no evidence to support any supposed conspiracy by those darned PROGRESSIVES (fist shake) to steal elections ...

Again, my previous comments were directed at the nature of what most states have put into play to address A NON-EXISTENT ISSUE based on nothing more than political expediency at best and attempts at disenfranchisement at worst ... to wit: requiring a VOTER ID that comes with a price or a virtually insurmountable process of acquiring said ID is equivalent to the POLL TAXES that were historically used to keep American citizens from exercising their rights.

HERE's the SHOCKING TWIST ENDING: I don't personally disagree with the idea! Sure, show an ID when voting, that makes perfect sense! Make the process available to every citizen! Clean up crappy recordkeeping at the State and local level ...

BUT THIS ADDRESSES A PROBLEM THAT DIDN'T EXIST TO BEGIN WITH!!!

What a waste of the People's money and time!

17 "freakin'" votes.

EDITED to acknowledge that Pax went back and added a citation for Foxy Newsy.

edit on 2Sun, 10 Aug 2014 02:40:43 -050014p022014866 by Gryphon66 because: As noted.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: guohua

It's not your constitutional right to buy alcohol like it is to vote so what does that have to do with anything.




It's my constitutional right to own a firearm, but I have to provide ID for that. Courts have ruled that it does not violate my rights to ID me to exercise that constitutional right. Gun control advocates opened up the door to requiring ID to exercise your rights. Get used to it. It's not racist to require ID, and it's not discrimination to require ID to exercise your rights. If it is then ALL ID laws in place for everything should be repealed.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

I had a longer reply out but then I noticed your had the the Ben Frank quote in your sig.
Please tell me how you can have the 'get used to it' attitude while sporting that... Doesn't makes sense to me.
I know that is is probably aimed more at your gun control beef but that statement goes for all rights not just one or two.

The 2nd also calls for a well regulated militia, so that leaves that does leave some doors open on how your regulate that.
But that is a whole other thread, for the sake of this one, I agree that needing an ID for firearms is a papers check. And one papers check should not open the door for the 'get used to it' for anymore. It should be the last straw for us not to let them do anymore.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I have the "get used to it" attitude because the door has been opened. The "slippery slope" cliche. The constitution leaves voting regulation to the states, so long as the regulations aren't a form of discrimination i.e. race, religion, sex etc. Unless you can prove that requiring ID for something discriminates in some way, I see no way out of requiring ID. And if you can prove that requiring ID is a form of discrimination, then doesn't that open the door to have all ID laws repealed? That's a can of worms the gov will never let be opened.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


Between 2000 and 2010, there were:

649 million votes cast in general elections

47,000 UFO sightings

441 Americans killed by lightning

13 credible cases of in-person voter impersonation


Source - Mother Jones (let the source-damning begin)


so, no worries! only 13.

just glad they upheld the voter ID law.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: tsingtao

13 fraudulent votes out of 649,000,000 votes cast.

Or, stated another way, 0.0000020030817% of the votes cast were "fraudulent."

Stated yet another way 2/1000000ths of a vote.

Say it with me IN-SIG-NIF-I-CANT ...



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tsingtao

13 fraudulent votes out of 649,000,000 votes cast.

Or, stated another way, 0.0000020030817% of the votes cast were "fraudulent."

Stated yet another way 2/1000000ths of a vote.

Say it with me IN-SIG-NIF-I-CANT ...



like i said, "so?" no problem then, is there.

and if these people have to go 1000 miles to get an id, how far do they have to go to vote?

are all these no-id voters living in alaska?



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: XTexan

Well if you are willing to just get used to it then get used to more and more rights getting taken away, which is exactly what that quote is warning us against.

And while I don't necessarily agree with the discriminatory issue, providing this to be a discriminatory issue would not open the door to get rid of id checks for private businesses check id for privileges.
Not sure why rights keep getting compared to privileges.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: XTexan

Well if you are willing to just get used to it then get used to more and more rights getting taken away, which is exactly what that quote is warning us against.

And while I don't necessarily agree with the discriminatory issue, providing this to be a discriminatory issue would not open the door to get rid of id checks for private businesses check id for privileges.
Not sure why rights keep getting compared to privileges.


I would prefer to not get used to it, but until the majority of this country decide they don't want a nanny state we are in for more of the same. Those private businesses only check ID due to laws that are on the books. If it is proven in the courts that requiring ID for one thing is discrimination, then how long until the lawyers line up and the other laws are shot down?

poor example:

IF the courts rule that requiring ID for voting is discrimination because some people can't afford them. Then doesn't that mean that the next adult that is denied the ability to do something because he doesn't have ID can now sue because he can't afford an ID and therefore being discriminated against?

Also, what you call privileges I call the actions of a free person. The pursuit of life, liberty, and justice.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 03:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

It's not justification enough to limit freedom for speculative danger, if it were true, we would have gun control in this country.

More people die each day because of gun violence than there are cases of actual voter fraud, but you all are ready to limit that freedom unconstitutionaly for the very rare instance.

But no gun control?

Where in the constitution does it say you need a paper to vote?

Same typical spin. This is very, very simple. There are requirements to vote...and they are not simply "you are in the country". Therefore, in order to vote, you have to show something more than that "you are in the country". That has historically be identifying yourself...identification or as we call it here...ID. No one is promoting RFIDs, a special citizen identification card or a DNA test. Only the same thing you need to fly anywhere, drive anywhere, etc.

It is a simple requirement to ASSURE that in a country full of illegals (with more arriving...thanks Obama) that a person DOES NOT TAINT THE VOTING POOL...THEREFORE, INFRINGING ON EVERYONE ELSE'S RIGHTS! Get that...if ANYONE votes that is not permitted, it erodes our RIGHT TO VOTE and our VOTE BEING COUNTED! If one illegal, who is not permitted to vote, votes against the person I do...MY VOTE DOESN'T COUNT! And wasn't that the big call-to-action before...COUNT MY VOTE!



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

The numbers of actual voter fraud is minuscule, tiny, insignificant.

I know conservatives are terrified of absolutely everything, but solving a problem that doesn't really exist with a solution that only creates more problems than it solves isn't a solution at all.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: paxnatus
You do not have an explicitly mentioned constitutional right to drive or buy alcohol, but you do for voting. They cannot hinge that right on something else that I am not required to, or may object to doing.

As far as fraud goes, its been going on forever. This does little to stop it. This is about forcing a tracking ID card on people, and that is why we see all these new ID requirements cropping up across various subjects besides just voting.

Gerrymandering is fraud, this won't stop it...
Workplace intimidation of employees over their vote is fraud, this won't stop it...
Intimidation of voters at the polling place is fraud, this won't stop it...
Buying votes is fraud, this won't stop it...

So basically what this is about is the rich elites wanting to stop the poor from having a say in voting, while still being able to pull the type of fraud that only money allows to happen.

edit on 8/10/2014 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
I've been doing a bit more reading on the decision being touted in OP above (easier to read link to the Court's Decision), and as usual, find that it's been woefully misrepresented in terms of actual facts in favor of the poster's political agenda.

Turns out that the only "slap down" handed out to the Plaintiffs in the case (which, by the by, include NC university students, the NC League of Women Voters, etc., not just the Justice Department) is that the Bush appointee Thomas Schroder declined the motion of Plaintiffs to delay the November election ... there has been no ruling on the "merits" of this case.

And of course, the issue goes far beyond the simplistic "have a Government issued ID to vote" but actually reflects the true nature of these kinds of antics on the part of Republican-controlled State legislatures ...

1. No same day registration to vote ... regardless of what kind of ID you have.
2. Early voting days decreased from 17 to to 10 days --- regardless of what kind of ID you have.
3. Out of precinct votes WILL SIMPLY NOT BE COUNTED --- such as are cast by NC residents away at University, again REGARDLESS OF WHAT KIND OF ID YOU HAVE.

So, as usual, in these cases, we see that the effort is not about insuring one citizen/one vote, but is really about changing the rules of the election process and targeting certain groups for disenfranchisement, etc.

It's not merely about race, and I've never claimed it is. It's about the State governments that are Republican-controlled desperately trying to fight the losing battle of staying in power and depriving United States citizens of their rights while doing it.

I'm so saddened to see all the "smaller guvment crowd" touting these kinds of massive government interference in the rights of American citizens whenever it fits their own political beliefs and agendas.

However, the case for the constitutionality of the new laws has NOT been decided by this ruling ... which makes the OP an even better example of garden-variety dishonesty that has become so prevalent among faux-conservatives.
edit on 8Sun, 10 Aug 2014 08:32:22 -050014p082014866 by Gryphon66 because: Added a link to the decision



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have made no comments about Canada.
Perhaps if you ask a reasonable question rather than a vague, empty rhetorical one ...?


The point I was making, which is quite obvious for those not being purposefully obtuse, is how come it is racist to want voter identification in the United States but no one says it is racist for Canadians to have the same legislation.



posted on Aug, 10 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I have made no comments about Canada.
Perhaps if you ask a reasonable question rather than a vague, empty rhetorical one ...?


The point I was making, which is quite obvious for those not being purposefully obtuse, is how come it is racist to want voter identification in the United States but no one says it is racist for Canadians to have the same legislation.


... and my point to you, as your question was not a fair or reasonably offered point of discussion, but was (and is) designed to imply that I'm advocating either for no voter ID or asserting that voter ID is inherently racist (neither of which I have done anywhere at any time, by the by).

So, since you found it relevant to belabor your misplaced comment posing as a question ... I'd have to rule your effort a "swing and a miss" at best.

Best,



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join