|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 1:19:41 PM | Crash, it's a novel idea being born free but we are not born free. As flawed as our system is I believe it's the best anywhere, yet we are born so free that in our country citizens cannot live where they want, example: If I wanted tobuild a new home or move into a realative new one in the burbs of nay large city I would have to build it according to the rules of the sub division, if I move into one already existing I have to follow the rules which govern the maintenance of my yard and color of my house. It's my money, I was born free like you, I have the right to pursue happiness, so why the silly rules, because it's not a free society like we think it is.
Rules are made to benefit our society but someone is always going to cry wolf, some rules and laws are needed for a safer and fairer way of life. Having to show a photo ID before voting is a great thing and should be mandatory, no one stands to loose except the person not elected. If the feds wanted they can override any state law not complying with fed law. States have no power to goern themselves outside the constitution and ther laws must comply. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 1:46:35 PM | The "poor" have to have those photo ID's to get those food stamps and drink in the bars in Texas.
So, you better believe they DO have them, already! | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 2:03:36 PM | Exodusi,
Florida requires picture ID to vote. so to say that no states require ID's is wrong. I know I live in Florida and was asked for my picture ID when i went to vote | |
|
| |
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:22:35 PM | I meant carrying an ID is not a law or requirement. It may be required to vote, now, but historically, we have never had to produce what communist countries call; "Papers!" I have nothing to hide, but, , , Slippery slope, be careful what you wish for.
Franklin's quote on giving up liberty for security seems pretty applicable right about now! | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:41:39 PM | .
Back of the hand or the forehead?
I would say the buttocks....One hand could do a cavity search other scan ID....
I bet that would lower voter turn out...
 | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:41:44 PM | | franklin wasn't living in this time though. my concern is about underage and illegal votes. that's it. we are living in two different worlds now. obviously. read my thread on government math. proving that you belong here and are old enough to vote is fine for me. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:46:58 PM |
I meant carrying an ID is not a law or requirement.
No... it is a law.
In many US States, if you are in a car with a friend of yours, he gets pulled over, and you are sitting in the passenger seat... you have to produce ID.
You also need ID to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, and play the lotto and gamble.
You also need ID to operate an automobile.
So everyone should have ID anyways.
As far as food stamps in Texas:
The FLDS forged birth cirtificates and have no State IDs... they are almost all on food stamps and welfare.
Chew on that a little.... it just seems so wrong...
--Brandon | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:48:14 PM | I agree, the founding father's didn't think about the second amendment much either, all that was available at the time were muzzle loaders. They didn't write much on the subject, so we don't know their thoughts. I don't know how I feel about a national ID system. I guess I just don't trust the current administration as far as I can throw them, and I couldn't throw Cheney very far!
We are to the point where techonolgy exists to track everyone. . . Implant a small GPS as an infant, so no matter where you go, the government knows. . . It could eliminate most crime. Kind of hard to have an alabi if they have you path for 43 years mapped out!
I don't know if I want to have that world exist around me. . . | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:49:17 PM | .
This is such a small problem with voter fraud........
Alabama voter fraud.... Election of Don Siegelman ...
Paperless trail Voting.....
Contract control and count of vote to a Private Companies....
Stalin didn't care who voted or how many.... He just wanted to count the votes.... | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:52:33 PM | | It was pretty funny that Fidel Castro was offering to officiate our voting to make sure it was fair. The world seems to know it is a joke. The least of our concerns is the 2o or 30 illegal aliens who might try to vote. They don't go places that might single them out. It isn't a problem. Dibold is a serious problem. Hanging Chads is a serious problem. Eliminating poor and minorities from the voting process is a serious problem! Illegal aliens DON'T vote! | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:55:49 PM |
Crash, it's a novel idea being born free but we are not born free.
and because you think that you are not. I am free and thus feel the boot on my neck.
rules? how about doing unto others as you would have others do unto you? Seems simple enough. | |
|
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 6:33:34 PM | certain inalienable rights, AMONG which....
the rights spelled out are just the ones spelled out, not meant as limits upon us as sovereign beings. Remember? That was part of the point of the revolution, to remove ourselves from under that yoke I talked of before, so that we are not subjects, but sovereigns in our own right. We have other rights just because we are born free, and they cannot be taken away, if we remember they are there, and are willing to fight for them....
one perspective says its cool to be good with the food they are serving us in jail, the other says those that would be our jailers have it wrong... it is just us.
want the red pill or the blue one? | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 6:59:20 PM | .
======Hanging Chads is a serious problem=======
The state of FLorida Has not given the Official voter count from 2000............
Caging is spoken of openly by the GOP....
GOP head in Kansas ...
a White House Admin before congress...
Caging Is illegal ...... Does anyone care about that??? | |
|
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 9:40:24 PM | Crash, it's a novel idea being born free but we are not born free.
Well, it's still a great song. 
For those non-lions amongst us, you are never BORN free.
That's something that you are responsible for, it's something that one defends.
Any freedom that anyone has is the result of opposing those who try to rob us of them. It's not given -it's taken.
If you close your eyes, and depend on ANY government to "give" you freedom - you already are in trouble.
Ballots, not bullets, cast by an informed and involved electorate are the wall against tyranny. Standing up and speaking out is the responsibility of those who wish to remain free. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:07:25 PM | Montreal guy:
For those non-lions amongst us, you are never BORN free.
That's something that you are responsible for, it's something that one defends.
Any freedom that anyone has is the result of opposing those who try to rob us of them. It's not given -it's taken.
If you close your eyes, and depend on ANY government to "give" you freedom - you already are in trouble.
Ballots, not bullets, cast by an informed and involved electorate are the wall against tyranny. Standing up and speaking out is the responsibility of those who wish to remain free.
Montrealguy, I agree with what you say. But IMO, it's important to keep an eye on the difference between a specific "government" (meaning, in the US at least, the people inhabiting offices in D.C.) and the CONSTITUTION, which has a continuing existence outside of and transcending the government of the day. One of my concerns about the present government--the current administration often (but not always) working in cooperation with the legislature -- has been what I have seen as attempts to impose upon and even do away with some protections "guaranteed" by the constitution...and so I DO think it's important to continually question seemingly small measures, for their potential implications when it comes to truly important rights, that ARE supposedly guaranteed by our constitution. Because, while I don’t want to get into a debate about what “freedom” actually means, in this country we are, by birth, supposed to be guaranteed certain RIGHTS…among them liberty, which IMO, necessarily means the right to VOTE.
Don't get me wrong--in itself, I'm able and ready to supply a photo-ID when I go to vote. But many things concern me about this—as much for symbolic reasons as for practical ones. This measure, first and foremost, will result in making it harder rather than easier to vote. That’s a fact, because even if MOST of us won’t be inconvenienced by this, there ARE some people who will NOT vote because of it. Maybe the numbers are small….I have no real idea about that….but that’s not the point: one person is too many in my book.
And WHY this, NOW, when the BIG problem with the American electoral process is the fact that it, in its execution, is becoming something of an international joke, NOT because of people voting who shouldn't, but because of DISenfranchisement? What about all those voting machines that are proven to be unreliable, and obviously there is always a danger of significant disenfranchisement or tampering because of their use? What about the problem of people being disenfranchised due to (clearly at times deliberately) corrupted electoral registers? What about the obvious tampering that has taken place in the last two presidential elections, when it comes to denying “certain people” their constitutional right to vote? What about those problems? And so what do we do? Oh yes, we’ll keep the damn machines, but how about we hop on an anti-immigrant tide in order, rather than to ENSURE enfranchisement, instead ensure some level of disenfranchisement. For what?
I personally dislike the populist rhetoric used on this matter, which is so similar to the reactionary "appeal to the lowest common denominator" rhetoric which has succeeded in whittling away at guaranteed rights in other areas, but more importantly perhaps, has led us to essentially agree that it's a good idea to LABEL us all--identify and label us as people who should or shouldn't be trusted as “patriots,” should or shouldn't be considered potential terrorists, should or shouldn’t have access to publicly funded medical care or public education, should or shouldn’t have the right not to be tortured or have our private phone calls listened to or be held in prison without charge. And now we are sooo concerned with the purity of our electoral process (lmfao) that we now think we need to worry, to the extent of legislating it on a national level, about making sure we identify who should or shouldn't be trusted to actually BE people with the right to vote in what is supposed to be our democracy (now we don't have the right to vote as citizens....it's CONDITIONAL on having PROOF of identity)? Again, FOR WHAT? WHY? Has there been some big “immigrant voting scandal” that I haven’t heard of? Have Juan and Rosita and Miguel been sneaking into the polls and corrupting our elections? Or is this just another attempt to whittle away at our given rights by jumping on the bandwagon of making Americans feel good by EXCLUDING those scary immigrants from one more walk of American life. WOO HOO!! We’ll show them! And if a few old poor people who don’t have driving licenses don’t get to vote in the process….well It’s WELL WORTH IT!!!
Plus….IF this is a step towards requiring photo-ID as a condition of citizenship—and I’d bet money that it IS-- then that too is a worrying trend to me. I find it difficult to articulate why this concerns me as much as it does….but if one is required to hold ID, then one can be required to SHOW ID, but one can ALSO be either denied ID or categorized by ID. Whether you have to identify yourself for the sake of driving or buying alcohol or crossing borders is irrelevant. None of those things are RIGHTS guaranteed in the constitution, ATTACHED to citizenship. But if I have to have an ID as a condition of being a citizen, then essentially my citizenship becomes something that is NOT inherent to ME, but to my identity CARD, ISSUED by my government, WHATEVER the government of the day. At that point, my citizenship has become the GIFT of my government—it’s GIVEN to me by THEM, rather than being inherent to ME. And as such, it can be denied; it can be taken away; it can disappear; it can expire? What happens if I lose my ID, or it gets lost in the system, or delays take place in processing it, or I somehow don’t QUALIFY for receiving it? What…so now I can’t VOTE? Or more to the point, I’m NOT actually a citizen of my country? I can no longer PROVE it so my citizenship no longer exists? Actually being born here isn’t enough? What happens if—as with driving licenses—a certain future government decides to create CATEGORIES of citizenship, easily marked on these IDs? Am I forever just a citizen…or at some point might I become a certain KIND of citizen? Or maybe, despite having a birth certificate proving that I was born in this country, I’m not a citizen at all---because I don’t have the identity card proving it…because I’ve somehow not been deemed citizen-like? Maybe I’m too radical in my politics….maybe I had scary commie parents or grandparents….maybe I’m not a Christian….or I’m not the “right” kind of Christian ….maybe I have too much Jewish “blood”…..maybe I’ve been caught doing something subversive, like burning a flag or yelling obscenities at a president I don’t like or having a Moslem friend….. who knows? The point is that if we have to PROVE citizenship beyond just proving having been born here….then we MIGHT just find ourselves FAILING to prove it. And that’s important because we have NO IDEA what’s going to happen in this country and its government in the future. There’s little doubt that we’re at a transitional point in our history….and we SHOULD be paying attention to what’s happening with OUR rights, bit by bit, HERE, at home.
OK, so now some people are thinking that I’m some sort of whacky conspiracy theorist….and that embarrasses me. But MY reality is that I DON’T trust THIS government at all (either the republican executive OR the majority democrat legislature OR the increasingly right-wing Supreme Court), and because of that I’m predisposed to dislike measures taken by ANY government that can give powers to itself OR to the next one or the one after that and so on, that I can imagine being pretty easily abused. IMO, whatever “freedom” actually means, we are slipping down a slope towards less and less “liberty” as envisioned in our constitution, and THAT does bother the hell out of me. And as I said in an earlier post, I don’t believe for one second that this is ACTUALLY about keeping non-citizens out of polling stations….so what IS it about? THIS government has made no secret of its desire to whittle away at constitutional protections….whether you think it’s a big deal or not in itself to have a national law requiring the production of photo ID at a polling station, it’s crazy to pretend that this measure doesn’t contribute to that (whittling) process. IMO, one should ALWAYS think about the NEXT step…because the next step is always made easier by the one that precedes it. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/1/2008 11:49:43 PM |
But IMO, it's important to keep an eye on the difference between a specific "government" (meaning, in the US at least, the people inhabiting offices in D.C.) and the CONSTITUTION, which has a continuing existence outside of and transcending the government of the day.
The Constitution IS the foundation of everything else, in regards to America. It is the prime source of control.
It's only as good as those defending it. | |
|
| |
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/2/2008 8:11:13 AM | | If producing a photo ID to vote wa mandatory in all elections and one was provided for those who couldn't afford one, explain how it will make it harder to vote rather than easier. The purpose of a mandatory photo ID to vote is not to make it easier but to make voting a fair process by helping to eliminate voting fraud. Sure, some will always find ways around it but in order to keep it as fair a process as possible our government must evolve with those who would undermine the voting process. Somebody please explain how making a photo ID a requirement to vote will make it harder to vote, don't just say it, explain how. As for the states who do make a photo ID mandatory to vote they seem to have fewer problems than the states who don't require it. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/2/2008 9:35:53 AM | I don't see any difference in what I'm saying MG and what your saying. I recognize that I am born free and there are those who would take that away. That's why I started to quote the preamble because that is the beginning point for the rest, that we have rights that are our birthright that aren't even named in the constitution, but to secure these that could be named they were written into the constitution.
To look at the constitution and say we don't really have the right to vote ignores the preamble. The word "among" is key here.
lethrnk - I agree there are problems with voting, I just don't see ID's as being the best thing to solve them as has been stated by myself and other. | |
|
| Photo ID required to vote, good or bad
Posted: 5/2/2008 9:48:09 AM | .
As for the states who do make a photo ID mandatory to vote they seem to have fewer problems than the states who don't require it.
You won't have no problem giving examples of the problems..... is this a massive problem?
I am sure you have the same concern about caging>>>>>>
Monica Goodling — Justice Department’s former White House liaison — dismissed voter suppression allegations against Griffin, by calling caging just “a direct-mail term.” | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
