Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 298

Thread: Voter ID

  1. #166
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,074
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1557

    Default

    looks like the real id act is already in place to take place.... BUMMER!

    here is what ron paul had to say about it, and i agree with him on this.

    my state of maine has opted OUT, but that now will prevent me from being able to fly, be held in captivity, in the USA because i won't be able to cross a border.... homeland security has free access to add other requirements to it, can follow you anywhere you go...

    how in the hell can you insist the gvt does not keep track of those that own guns for those 2nd amendment lovers, while you allow your representatives to vote something like this in to law?

    HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
    BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    February 9, 2005

    HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform

    Mr. Speaker:

    I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

    What is wrong with this bill?

    The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

    Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

    Republican Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID but at the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.

    This bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number, and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the “Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive database of sensitive information on American citizens that will be shared with Canada and Mexico!

    This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

    This legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints, DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all time of the day and night.

    There are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico - or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

    What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.

    H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

    Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?

    H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.

    I urge my colleagues to vote “NO” on the REAL ID Act of 2005

  2. #167
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,669
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trigg View Post
    Let the cheating at the polls continue unabated. Since someone somewhere might have to pay or travel to obtain an ID, and since said someone doesn't want the gov. to know who they are that just isn't permissable.

    Said person hopefully already knows that the gov. has bank records, SS#, birth certificate and any number of other ways to keep track of just what they're up to anyway.

    Carry on
    Are you sure you are not a politician?

    That is exactly what they want. The unabated ability to cheat at the polls... for their side that is. They want to stop the other side from cheating (Dems want to stop electronic voting because the programs MAY be compromised and Reps want to stop dead men from voting Democrat) but none of them want to stop both forms (or all forms) of cheating. Now you side with them and say like some people, "since we can't be certain that there is fraud involved (on my side) we should do nothing to prevent it from happening in the future in the mean time we KNOW the other side cheats so we have to stop them right now."

    Are you sure you are not a politician?

    Immie

    PS I will let you all guess who I am paraphrasing in that paragraph.
    Last edited by Immanuel; 12-28-2007 at 02:57 PM.
    For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9

  3. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    I'm a day late and a dollar short, but here's my position (CWN-style):

    1. Yes, require photo IDs to vote.
    1a. Since most people have/use driver's licenses as their primary form of ID, make it a federal law that to obtain a driver's license, you must provide proof of citizenship. Then, make everyone renew their driver's license within the next two years.
    2. A poll tax is a tax exacted at the polls exclusively to vote. Paying money to the state to obtain an ID, which can be used for purposes other than voting, is not a poll tax, plain and simple.
    3. The Electoral College is in place because states, not the people, elect the President. To answer MFM's question, each state gets the number of electors equal to the number of Representatives and Senators from the state. If you take two electors from each state, you now have the number of electors from each state equal to the number of Representatives from each state, which is exactly the same as having a popular election. Therefore, taking those two electors out defeats the purpose of the EC.

    a few points:

    1. I know how the electoral college works and how its numbers are established. My question was rhetorical

    2. If people do not have a photo ID, and they are required to get one in order to vote, regardless of what other purposes it might be used for after the fact.... it remains a poll tax. I say again: my father did not have a photo ID for at least a decade before he died, yet he voted in every election. He had no need for any form of photo ID and to have required that he get one in order to vote would have beena poll tax. pure and simple.

    3. taking two electors from each state would definitely NOT be EXACTLY the same as having a popular election. It would still be quite possible for a candidate to win the popular vote by a significant margin and still lose the electoral college.

  4. #169
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    3,669
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    a few points:

    If people do not have a photo ID, and they are required to get one in order to vote, regardless of what other purposes it might be used for after the fact.... it remains a poll tax. I say again: my father did not have a photo ID for at least a decade before he died, yet he voted in every election. He had no need for any form of photo ID and to have required that he get one in order to vote would have beena poll tax. pure and simple.
    So, in fact, if you wanted to, you could actually be voting for your dad in the next election? Because they would not have removed his name from the rolls and you could go in and vote for the Democrat of your choice twice without anyone questioning you.

    You know he is deceased and will not be voting. You don't need a picture id, so you could go vote for your dad.

    Not that you would as we realize that all Democrats are saints (I'm not saying you believe this, but others here do) and only a Republican would stoop so low.

    This is why picture ids should be required.

    Immie

    PS I realize you have said many times that you believe an id should be required as long as it is free to those in need. It is others who I believe need to read this, but again she will come up with an excuse why it is wrong.
    Last edited by Immanuel; 12-28-2007 at 03:15 PM.
    For it is by Grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not of yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph 2:8-9

  5. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    11510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    a few points:

    1. I know how the electoral college works and how its numbers are established. My question was rhetorical

    2. If people do not have a photo ID, and they are required to get one in order to vote, regardless of what other purposes it might be used for after the fact.... it remains a poll tax. I say again: my father did not have a photo ID for at least a decade before he died, yet he voted in every election. He had no need for any form of photo ID and to have required that he get one in order to vote would have beena poll tax. pure and simple.

    3. taking two electors from each state would definitely NOT be EXACTLY the same as having a popular election. It would still be quite possible for a candidate to win the popular vote by a significant margin and still lose the electoral college.
    where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to vote without being required to show ID?

  6. #171
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    where in the constitution does it guarantee the right to vote without being required to show ID?
    silly question.

    and irrelevant.

  7. #172
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    11510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    silly question.

    and irrelevant.
    translation:

    I can't form a cohesive thought to debate with Yurt so I will create a logical fallacy by using ad hominem arguments.

    It is wholly relevent. It goes entirely to the issue of what exactly constitutes a "poll tax." As I and many have said, requiring an ID is not a poll tax, de facto or anything else. I have also pointed out that CA has a $7 ID for those with low incomes. Should we require this for voting, are you actually telling me that people cannot afford $7?

    Would you be ok if the ID was free?

  8. #173
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    you and RSR...so good at "translations".

    Do you practice together in each other's rumpus rooms?

    Please....tell me what your question has to do with the fact that requiring a citizen to purchase a photo ID card solely for the purpose of voting is tantamount to a poll tax?

    I'll wait.

    and if you had taken the time to read any of my other posts in this thread you would have already read the answer to your last question.

  9. #174
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    11510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    you and RSR...so good at "translations".

    Do you practice together in each other's rumpus rooms?

    Please....tell me what your question has to do with the fact that requiring a citizen to purchase a photo ID card solely for the purpose of voting is tantamount to a poll tax?

    I'll wait.

    and if you had taken the time to read any of my other posts in this thread you would have already read the answer to your last question.
    I already did. You have no right to an ID free vote. You have no right to live in society without the requirement of an ID. You argument is pathetic and desperate. So much so that you have conjured up in your mind two men in a "rumpus" room. If you want to get into gay porn, go to another website.

  10. #175
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    I already did. You have no right to an ID free vote. You have no right to live in society without the requirement of an ID. You argument is pathetic and desperate. So much so that you have conjured up in your mind two men in a "rumpus" room. If you want to get into gay porn, go to another website.

    show me where, in the constitution, it states that you must present a photo ID in order to be able to cast a vote.

    I'll wait.

    And, as I said...if you want to get into a discussion, read up on it first. Rather than ask me redundant questions, read posts 118, 129 and 133...for starters.

  11. #176
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7761
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    show me where, in the constitution, it states that you must present a photo ID in order to be able to cast a vote.
    Should it matter? What if it did? It would only be part of a "procedure" for voting, and therefore ok to bend the rules, no?
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  12. #177
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    11510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    show me where, in the constitution, it states that you must present a photo ID in order to be able to cast a vote.

    I'll wait.

    And, as I said...if you want to get into a discussion, read up on it first. Rather than ask me redundant questions, read posts 118, 129 and 133...for starters.
    so if it is NOT expressly stated so in the constitution, is it then unconstitutional to you? where in the constitution does it say you can use a pencil to vote? electronic voting? punching holes? voting at the ymca? your right to vote is not absolute MFM. if it were, then being a felon would not effect your right. here is what protects your right:

    1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


    Thats it. There is nothing there about the right being abridged by requiring the person taking your vote, to make sure, that it is in fact you.

    If congress declared that all person over 18 have a photo ID, guess what, you couldn't do squat about it.

  13. #178
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Should it matter? What if it did? It would only be part of a "procedure" for voting, and therefore ok to bend the rules, no?
    a citizen does not need to DO anything to exercise his right to vote other than appear at a polilng place. If government requires other things, and those things cost the citizen money, they are poll taxes. period.

  14. #179
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Communist China
    Posts
    2,325
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    3
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yurt View Post
    so if it is NOT expressly stated so in the constitution, is it then unconstitutional to you? where in the constitution does it say you can use a pencil to vote? electronic voting? punching holes? voting at the ymca? your right to vote is not absolute MFM. if it were, then being a felon would not effect your right. here is what protects your right:

    1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


    Thats it. There is nothing there about the right being abridged by requiring the person taking your vote, to make sure, that it is in fact you.

    If congress declared that all person over 18 have a photo ID, guess what, you couldn't do squat about it.
    if congress did not provide for means for citizens who did not need that ID for any reason other than voting to be provided those ID free, then anyone could do a lot more than squat about it...they could file a lawsuit and, as it stands right now, that law would be found to be unconstitutional because it would be viewed as a poll tax.

  15. #180
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7761
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manfrommaine View Post
    a citizen does not need to DO anything to exercise his right to vote other than appear at a polilng place. If government requires other things, and those things cost the citizen money, they are poll taxes. period.
    Why can't the government require other things? And if they aren't supposed to, why can't they just bend the rules on this matter a little?
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums