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.

 

Apparently, 75% of Americans want to be Dragged Back to the Jim Crow Era

page: 21
46
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Yes, I am a gun rights advocate, so that kinda makes sense.

The only point that I agree with the anti-gun advocates is that identification should be required to purchase a firearm to verify a person is who they say they are, and avoid a deadly weapon getting into the wrong hands legally
, just as a person should verify their identity to vote to ensure that a vote does not get into the wrong hands.

It's not a hard concept.

And I DO beleive in a strict enterpretation of the constitution. But apply common sense as well. DUH!!
edit on 11-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Yes, and that is the only point that I agree with the anti-gun advocates.

Identification should be required to purchase a firearm to verify a person is who they say they are, and avoid a deadly weapon getting in the wrong hands legally
, just as a person should verify their identity to vote to ensure that a vote does not get into the wrong hands.

It's not a hard concept.

And I DO beleive in a strict enterpretation of the constitution. But apply common sense as well. DUH!!


So, you say you believe in a 'strict' interpretation of the Constitution, and yet you go on to say you believe we should make changes to it if we want.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by deesul69
 


Don't be tricked - he will use the argument that a voter ID requirement is nowhere in the Constitution. Well, that doesn't mean it can't b implemented; there are many things not written into the Constitution that are laws.
edit on 11-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by deesul69
 


Don't be tricked - he will use the argument that a voter ID requirement is nowhere in the Constitution. Well, that doesn't mean it can't b implemented; there are many things not written into the Constitution that are laws.
edit on 11-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



And yet many of the same people saying there should be a BIG GOVERNMENT requirement for photo ID for voting are the very same people who reject various laws as being 'unconstitutional'.

I guess we see they are not actually interested in preserving the Constitution, but merely use that as a talking point when it suits their political goals.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 



You get a star, my friend.

Unfortunately some do not realize that the Constitution has nothing to do with this discussion.

The US constitution only deals with the Electors, and amendments 15,19,24, and 26, which apply to race, sex, poll tax, and age. None of it grants you the right to vote without ID.

Your votes are what cause the elector for your state decide who they will cast their vote for.

I can possibly see it going against certain state's constitutions, I may be wrong. I'm sure I'm not. Just figured I'd let this argument roll on.


And I DO beleive in a STRICT interpretation of the constitution!!

Just like STATES control gun purchases and ownership. You can privately transfer a firearm without ID in many states. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, and has nothing to do with the constitution, maybe the 14th amendment?

edit on 11-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by deesul69
 


Don't be tricked - he will use the argument that a voter ID requirement is nowhere in the Constitution. Well, that doesn't mean it can't b implemented; there are many things not written into the Constitution that are laws.
edit on 11-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



And yet many of the same people saying there should be a BIG GOVERNMENT requirement for photo ID for voting are the very same people who reject various laws as being 'unconstitutional'.

I guess we see they are not actually interested in preserving the Constitution, but merely use that as a talking point when it suits their political goals.


Well, unfortunately you have to understand the Constitution before you can attempt to preserve it.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Maybe you can start a campaign to add the:

28th Amendment- Allowing illegals, felons, and liars to fraudlently vote. Ratified 7-4-2011

1.The right of the illegal immigrants to vote fraudulently without proper identification shall not be infringed.

2. The right of felons not allowed to vote legally to defraud the polling system by not verifying their identification shall not be infringed.

3. Anybody who is not a functioning member of society shall be able to use somebody else's name to cast a vote for the official of their choice, no matter how illegal it may be.

4. Photo identification shall be outlawed from this day forward, for all purposes, and our country can be flushed down the toilet completely.

Then you're argument would be preserving the constitution, and I could no longer stick to a strict interpretation of it!!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by deesul69
 


Don't be tricked - he will use the argument that a voter ID requirement is nowhere in the Constitution. Well, that doesn't mean it can't b implemented; there are many things not written into the Constitution that are laws.
edit on 11-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)


Agreed.

The constitution guarantees rights that are included in it. Just because it doesn't say you have to have ID to vote in the constitution does not mean that's the law. If it specifically said that requiring ID to vote is illegal, that's a different story.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
This should be such a non-issue!! Every time I vote, I ask if they'd like to see ID, and I'm appauled by the fact that you don't need ID to vote. It should be a requirement to show a photo ID to vote.

Are you kidding me? This is the 21st century. What legal, functioning citizen doesn't have a photo ID?

Just as an example, how many of you posting on this thread do not have a valid photo ID?

And don't give me that crap that it goes against the poor. You mean to tell me that somebody can't afford the $10 to get an ID? I bust my ass for over 60 hours/week to provide a good life for my family!! Maybe they should get off their ass and WORK!! Then they can afford an ID!!

I'll tell you what. If it's required to show a photo ID to purchase a firearm, it should definitely be required to verify your identity, which is way higher up on the list than voting (2nd amendment vs 12th). The 2nd amendment gets stepped on all the time, and just because somebody makes a law (which shouldn't be anything new) about simply verifying you are who you say you are in order to vote, all the bleeding heart liberals get their panties in a bunch!!


List of things you need an ID for:
1- firearms purchase
2- driving
3- buying alcohol
4- buying cigarettes
5- getting a job
6- requesting certified copies of documents (birth/death/marriage certificates, etc.)
7- receiving welfare
8- shipping/receiving certain types of packages
9- receiving health care
Among many others!!

If you do not have a photo ID, you obviously are not enough of a functioning member of society (probably a crackhead) to decide who should be running the show, anyway, and we're better off without your vote.

I am absolutely not racist, and beleive that every citizen has the right to vote, and definitely should exercise it!! But you should be required to prove your identity to do so. There are 3 year old children that have state ID's. Let's get real here, people, and use some common sense.
edit on 11-6-2011 by deesul69 because: (no reason given)




Due to unintentional ignorance you would support such a Bill. I call it unintentional because apparently you're unaware of the conditions some poor people live in. I'm aware of it because I've lived it.

There are many people who get by without ID every day. How? They simply don't attempt things that would require ID. They live in places that the landlords know they don't have ID so don't require it, they walk, ride bikes or bus everywhere. They may not get public assistance. *Gasp* I bet you thought every poor person got welfare? LOL there are many more poor people who DON'T get welfare than do. For instance I didn't know I would have qualified for food stamps.

They don't have bank accounts or bills in their names, etc. There are probably millions of people who daily travel without ID.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
The issue in Florida was, Republicans were using voter intimidation and trickery. Such things as telling minorities the polls were closed while allowing people they assumed to be Repubs (white) in.


A proven lie.

www.blueeyedtex.com...

www.davidstuff.com...


edit on 11-6-2011 by wasco2 because: include link




Won't even bother to research the links. Why? Because I lived it and don't find it necessary to read what some revisionist is propaganding.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Either you're for freedom or you're not...can't pick and choose.


I suppose in a simplistic world with simplistic viewpoints, that may be. In reality, however, there are two types of rights that must be considered. One is the individual right to vote. The other is the collective right of the entire citizenry to a free and fair election. The question is, if there is reason to believe that rampant vote fraud occuring, at what point does an individual's right to vote with minimal government intrusion infringe upon the public's right to a free and fair election?

Again, this all goes back to the principle of 'reasonable restrictions' on your constitutional rights as an individual. We can argue all day about what constitutes reasonable, but it is an undeniable fact that the government can limit certain individual freedoms in order to protect the rights of others. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, for instance. You can't slander someone without legal repercussions. You can't set up a few empty beer cans and have a target practice session in the middle of the street in NYC. All these are reasonable restrictions on your individual rights placed in order to protect collective rights. And maybe, just maybe, you need to be able to conclusively prove your identity in order to ensure a fair electoral process for the public as a whole. That's the question here.


edit on 11-6-2011 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




For my response I submit something I directed at someone else:

I'm sorry, but I'll use your post as an example.

Are you STUPID or something? I mean this earnestly!

Do you REALLY, I mean, REALLY, think an illegal would have nothing better to do than spend all day casting what....20 votes for his/her candidate? Do you really think that happens? Do you know of anyone that would take the time to do this? If so, you probably know a mentally ill person.

WHO THE **** is going to go from poll to poll voting for their guy, as if anyone would think that would make a dent?

Ladies and gentleman this is what we are up against. This is why we can't get anything done with our country. I'm neither Left nor Right, but I can guarantee that you are Right even though you will probably deny it. This is how Conservatives and other Right leaners think! This is the paranoia they suffer from.

This person and probably many other Rightwingers, actually have it in their heads that Dem's want welfare so bad that they will go from poll to poll voting for a Dem! As if people aren't more concerned with everyday life!

How many of you in here thought of going from poll to poll voting for Obama or Mccain? I honestly want someone to answer this. How many of you think Welfare Willy, has nothing better to do (never mind he lives in an abandoned house and eats out the trash can) than go from poll to poll voting for a Dem in the hopes he will be given some extra welfare?

How many of you believe Pedro has nothing better to do (nevermind he's been working 12 hours on that hot roof for $9 per hour) than get off work and travel from poll to poll voting for a Dem in hopes he will get some extra welfare?

See how STUPID some peoples are?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Antiquated1

Originally posted by daddyroo45
Could you give a good reason why someone that is a citizen of this country,would not have some form of identification ? I mean if they will take the time to vote,why not take the time to get a proper id.


Can you explain to me why someone that is a citizen of this country would have a photo ID? This is about photo ID. Not a SS card or birth certificate. PHOTO ID. Why would a citizen have a photo ID?


A recent national survey sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law reveals that millions of American citizens do not have readily available documentary proof of citizenship. Many more – primarily women – do not have proof of citizenship with their current name. The survey also showed that millions of American citizens do not have government-issued photo identification, such as a driver’s license or passport. Finally, the survey demonstrated that certain groups – primarily poor, elderly, and minority citizens – are less likely to possess these forms of documentation than the general population.



As many as 11 percent of United States citizens – more than 21 million individuals – do not have government-issued photo identification.



Elderly citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification.



Minority citizens are less likely to possess government-issued photo identification.



Citizens with comparatively low incomes are less likely to possess photo identification.


Read more
edit on 10-6-2011 by Antiquated1 because: (no reason given)



BS. I am calling those claims BS. No ID= No cig's, No Booze, No Job, No Welfare, No State assistance(you need a valid ID for all those things).

This has more to do with getting illegals into the voting processes. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a member of La Raza.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 










I'm conservative and have never tried to hide it. You, however, are a screaming lib who is ashamed to admit it. You employ typical lib tactics of casting insults when your 'logic' fails you.





That word "logic" is the problem. Use common sense. I know many many people, even criminals and I have NEVER EVER come across someone committing voter fraud in that manner! No one cares that much except you Conservatives!



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by deesul69
reply to post by incrediblelousminds
 


Maybe you can start a campaign to add the:

28th Amendment- Allowing illegals, felons, and liars to fraudlently vote. Ratified 7-4-2011

1.The right of the illegal immigrants to vote fraudulently without proper identification shall not be infringed.

2. The right of felons not allowed to vote legally to defraud the polling system by not verifying their identification shall not be infringed.

3. Anybody who is not a functioning member of society shall be able to use somebody else's name to cast a vote for the official of their choice, no matter how illegal it may be.

4. Photo identification shall be outlawed from this day forward, for all purposes, and our country can be flushed down the toilet completely.

Then you're argument would be preserving the constitution, and I could no longer stick to a strict interpretation of it!!




So what I hypothesised is true? Libertarians are just wearing the name for fashion, they aren't walking what they talk. Either you want less government and more freedom or you don't.

Besides, all the unsavory people you mentioned, what reason should they not be able to vote? See that is the lie that was perpetuated long ago by bigots and self righteous to separate the people. If an illegal is living here (legal or illegally) why should they not vote? Why shouldn't a felon be able to vote? Why must someone be a functioning member of society...they live here right? They (all) have to live by the laws the elected pass correct?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
So the so called "conservatives" and "libertarians" are willing to allow this infringement because they are so terrified of a scenario that not one of them can demonstrate has ever happened.

It is hilarious beyond words to watch you all run around ATS like you are "awake" and "enlightened" and then here so many of you are screaming about how afraid you are of something that none of you can ever find happening ever or even explain in any logical manner how it could happen.

All you people making up stuff about John Smith have never voted. So many people here have shown they are not even voters just by the stupid stories they are making up to try and justify being afraid of something that does not even exist. What a f*ckin' joke.

"John Smith? We have 7, what is your address?"
uh uh uh uh uh uh uh.
"Go home until you remember where you live"


"John Smith? You already signed in today. You cannot vote again man."

Hey, I am John Smith and someone already signed my registration?


Oh Noes! The ulLegulls ur gunna start voting now because those of us that have never voted and do not understand the process err scurred ta death of sumthin that nuver even ever happens. But it might!!!! It does not make sense how it might, but it might!!!! We gotta do sumthin!


Too rich. Keep talking your teabag, ron paul, anon, alex jones crap about how you all know better than anyone what is really going on and then keep screaming about how we need to violate the constitution to protect you all from a fear that the people in charge made up and told you to worry about. How do you really like being worried about a problem they created in your heads? How does it feel to realize you cannot find where this has ever happened, cannot explain how it actually will happen and stick to your fear anyway?

What a sorry lot.


If no one can find a case of this type of voter fraud to show me after like 4 people asked and this many pages, then why can't anyone at least admit they have no problem being afraid of something that does not exist. It is one or the other and the first one has not come to pass yet.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by deesul69
 



reply to post by mishigas



You get a star, my friend.

Unfortunately some do not realize that the Constitution has nothing to do with this discussion.

The US constitution only deals with the Electors, and amendments 15,19,24, and 26, which apply to race, sex, poll tax, and age. None of it grants you the right to vote without ID.

Your votes are what cause the elector for your state decide who they will cast their vote for.

I can possibly see it going against certain state's constitutions, I may be wrong. I'm sure I'm not. Just figured I'd let this argument roll on.

And I DO beleive in a STRICT interpretation of the constitution!!

Just like STATES control gun purchases and ownership. You can privately transfer a firearm without ID in many states. It shouldn't be that way, but it is, and has nothing to do with the constitution, maybe the 14th amendment?


You beat me to the punch with the states right angle. I believe that the fact that there are so many variations in ID requirements from state to state does make a strong argument for it being a states right issue, otherwise there would be one consistent federal law.

And off topic, I'm surprised at your opinion on firearms transfers, given your avatar. But that's a topic for another thread.

edit on 12-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 



Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by DZAG Wright

I'm conservative and have never tried to hide it. You, however, are a screaming lib who is ashamed to admit it. You employ typical lib tactics of casting insults when your 'logic' fails you.


That word "logic" is the problem. Use common sense. I know many many people, even criminals and I have NEVER EVER come across someone committing voter fraud in that manner! No one cares that much except you Conservatives!


You're right - the word 'logic' *is* the problem. It should not be used in conjunction with your name. And it is no surprise that libs don't care about voter fraud and want it swept under the rug.

edit on 12-6-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kitilani
 




If no one can find a case of this type of voter fraud to show me after like 4 people asked and this many pages, then why can't anyone at least admit they have no problem being afraid of something that does not exist. It is one or the other and the first one has not come to pass yet.


Google is your friend. Type "examples of voter fraud"; there's about 281,000 pages. Don't expect anyone to do your research for you.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
See how STUPID some peoples are?


Yeah, I'd say you've proven it pretty conclusively. Thanks for playin'.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
And yet many of the same people saying there should be a BIG GOVERNMENT requirement for photo ID for voting are the very same people who reject various laws as being 'unconstitutional'.


The US Constitution itself states that voters must be US citizens. That would seemingly confer a responsibility on the local and state governments to verify the identity of those voters, would it not? Of course it does, and in fact, we already make some effort to do that by checking against the voter registration rolls.

Given that the Constitution prescribes no method for verifying their identification, is cross checking the voter registration rolls unconstitutional, too?




top topics



 
46
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join