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.

 

The Atlanta Braves.....are acting brave

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Absolutely. If there are such stipulations in their contracts.

So you believe a contract is needed to prevent a corporation from taking advantage of taxpayers?

Interesting position.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




So you believe a contract is needed to prevent a corporation from taking advantage of taxpayers?
Politicians do it all the time. A corporation is a business, and businesses operate on contracts, and a business is allowed to make business decisions.

Don't like it? Take 'em to court. Pretty sure they're expecting that.

edit on 4/6/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:35 AM
link   
i just sold my neghbours dog to a dentist in lichtenstein.
dont even feel bad.
hated that little #.



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Politicians do it all the time.

And you support that?

Well, it looks like I just got my wish. Thank you Phage, for standing by your principles (or lack thereof, at last). I disagree.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, it looks like I just got my wish. Thank you Phage, for standing by your principles (or lack thereof, at last). I disagree.

And, once again, you misrepresent what I have said. You make a habit of that.

I stated a fact (belief, if you insist). I made no judgement call on it and you asked for none. You didn't "get your wish." You just pulled that out of your ... underwear drawer. Surely you can troll better than that.

edit on 4/6/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Based on this more in-depth analysis of the bill, it appears that the writers did not remove the requirement to have absentee ballots signed, but simply increased the amount of information that must be submitted to make it harder for fraudulent voting attempts to succeed.


LOL, your in depth analysis? Please! I prefer to get legal analyses from experts. not crackpot Rednecks.

Nobody said absentee ballots are no longer required to be signed. Signature verification is no longer a thing, under the new law. The signature only represents an oath now, and is no longer used as an identifier. A photo ID has replaced the signature matching verification. Which is what I've been saying.




(4) If the registrar or clerk is unable to determine the identity of the elector from information given on the application or if the application is not complete or if the oath on the application is not signed, the registrar or clerk should promptly contact the elector in writing to request the necessary additional information and a signed copy of the oath.


That isn't a change in the law. The signature confirms an oath, that's all. A signature is no longer going to be used as an identifier, period.

What I keep saying is, there's a lot more in this bill than voter ID changes that have people upset, and corporations publicly expressing their disapproval and the MLB boycotting Georgia.


edit on 6-4-2021 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


And, once again, you misrepresent what I have said.

If that is true, it is only true because you refuse to clearly state your beliefs.

In such a case, one can be forgiven for drawing the most logical conclusions from the information presented.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




If that is true, it is only true because you refuse to clearly state your beliefs.

Incorrect. It's your confirmation bias at work. You see want you want, not what is presented. You seem to have some kind of grudge.


I just got my wish


edit on 4/6/2021 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


I prefer to get legal analyses from experts.

Therein lies a major difference in us. I prefer to read the bill myself.

You are aware that a signature verification is a form of identity verification? It is also one portion of the information on file in the registrar's office. I showed you, word for word, where the change was from "signature" to "identifying information," of which the signature is only one part. But if you prefer to listen to someone who spouts fantasy on a device designed to deliver such, please, be my guest.


What I keep saying is, there's a lot more in this bill than voter ID changes that have people upset, and corporations publicly expressing their disapproval and the MLB boycotting Georgia.

There is a lot to this new law, evidenced by the fact that it is so long. I am also not too enthralled at the complex legaleeze it is written in; it has been my experience that such can hide many unwanted details. As a matter of fact, that is why I picked up on your (false) claim about signature verification being removed. If that were true, I would be concerned about such a provision.

However, you do no one any favors when you continue to present rumor and innuendo. All that does is make it easier to hide truly malevolent provisions.

The people you are getting your information from are not interested in presenting facts. They are entertainers, busily preparing stories specifically designed to upset people over things they can misrepresent. Why? Upset people pay attention, and that includes attention to those ads you see every few moments. Those ads represent millions of dollars paid for the chance to get you and millions of other people to buy a product or service, which you probably do. It's a game, and you're the pawn... a willing pawn, I might add. Just another pawn helping these people who don't even know you're alive profit from your willful ignorance.

I will not be party to your game. If you expect to have any sort of serious conversation with me, you'll have to stop playing games and start thinking for yourself. Otherwise, you are no different than Phage... comic relief on a message board.

Ah, for the good old days when people could actually make a reasoned argument...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The only grudge I carry is against willful ignorance.

Don't flatter yourself, Phage.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




You are aware that a signature verification is a form of identity verification?


Not any more.



It is also one portion of the information on file in the registrar's office.


Signature verification for absentee ballots is eliminated in this bill.



The people you are getting your information from are not interested in presenting facts.


You, and your "in depth analysis is in error.


The law also does away with the signature-matching system Georgia used to use to check the identities of absentee voters. Instead, voters will have to provide their Georgia driver’s license number, the number on their state identification card, or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

abc17news.com...

edit on 6-4-2021 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Get ABC News on here and I'll debate them. Not gonna use you as a middleman.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You don't have debate ABC News.

All you have to do is find a legal professional that agrees with your analysis, that signature verification is still going to be used for absentee ballots under the new Georgia law.



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, I don't need someone to agree with me on a website. I can read. All by little lonesome.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 6 2021 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Can't find any legal analysis that confirms your take?
That's okay.
It's okay to be wrong, once in a while.



posted on Apr, 7 2021 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not looking. Again, I can read all by myself.

Why do you think a "legal analyst" can read better than you? The law is written down. It's not in a foreign language.

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 7 2021 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Why do you think a "legal analyst" can read better than you?


Apparently they are reading better than you.


The change eliminates signature-matching -- a process that can be subjective at times -- as the method of confirming absentee voters' identities. Instead, if voters have a driver's license number or a state ID number, they are required to use that to verify who they are.


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2021 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Because they said so?

I have this waterfront property in Oklahoma I'd like to talk to you about...

TheRedneck



posted on Apr, 7 2021 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Because they said so?


Because the Bill says so.
You're the only one conflating a signature affirming an oath with signature verification.



posted on Apr, 7 2021 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are only convinced the bill does not require signature verification because the MSM told you so. Now you are claiming the MSM knows what they are talking about because they agree with what you already believe because they told you it was true.

I'll let that Oklahoma land go cheap... you can watch whales playing from the front porch... honestly.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join