Repug, BRILLIANT!

No, it's a right. And because it's a right, we have to be very careful that the one voting enjoys the right to do so.

Therefore, we need a photo ID when you cast a ballot.

Oh, I think he was being honest the first time.

I don't get why showing ID when you vote is so controversial. Who are all these eligible voters who don't have and can't get ID?

I don't get why showing ID when you vote is so controversial.

* * *

Because it's a lot harder to cheat when you have to. That's why Democrats are so opposed.

There are NO rights, only priveledges.

Only a leftist who cannot comprehend the English language would say "Repug says voting is a privilege" when all that was said is an ID should be required to vote to help eliminate voter fraud. Sheesh.

"When you go to even a Burger King or a McDonalds and use your debit card, they'll ask you to see your ID"

I'm reasonably sure that I've never had to show my ID when using my debit or credit card. What is it with Minnesota electing so many retards anyway? Jessie Ventura, Al Frankin, now this numb nuts. Those people really need to get out more often.

"I'm reasonably sure that I've never had to show my ID when using my debit or credit card."
#8 | Posted by Tedly

You are forgetting that Jon Kyl has made it so that no one should expect anyone to be factual on the floor of a congress.

Repug, BRILLIANT!

#1 | Posted by butthole_surfer at 2011-04-24 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's nothing. Just wait til ReinDouche really gets going. He'll say 'Rethug!'

What a knee-slapper!!!!

If voting is a right then millions of pre-k to 12th graders are being disenfranchised. Time for a new suffrage movement.

ID should be required. Anybody with 10 bucks can get one.

ID should be required. Anybody with 10 bucks can get one.

#12 | Posted by jackass at 2011-04-24 05:52 PM

Well if you count peso's from your fluffing job, Jackass, even you might be able to get one.

Well if you count peso's from your fluffing job, Jackass, even you might be able to get one.

#13 | Posted by moomanfl at 2011-04-24 05:54 PM

Nah that is what your ex caught you doing and that is why she ditched you. Than and being a broke loser of course.

as long as there is a way for those with low or no income to obtain said ID, it should be required.

Nah that is what your ex caught you doing and that is why she ditched you. Than and being a broke loser of course.

#14 | Posted by jackass at 2011-04-24 05:58 PM

Bwahahahaha... that the best you could come up with, DonkeyFluffer? Seriously???

Whatsa matter Libs?

Afraid someone will ask the Obama voters for ID?

The much more probable cheats will be those voting by absentee ballot. So how will their IDs be checked? Anyone?

another idiot politician who represents more very stupid people

fluffing job...
#13 | Posted by moomanfl

I'll defer to you on the ups and downs and ins and outs of flufferdom.

Only a leftist who cannot comprehend the English language would say "Repug says voting is a privilege" when all that was said is an ID should be required to vote to help eliminate voter fraud.

Legitimate voters being denied the right to vote subtracts more votes than fraudulent voting adds, probably by several orders of magnitude.
And it turns out the legitimate voters being denied the right to vote are usually poor people and other perceived-to-vote-Democratic demographics.
Which is why Republicans are always clamoring for more barriers, to disenfranchise more presumably Democrat-voting poor people.

Voter fraud is a tiny problem compared to voter disenfranchisement.
Yet I've never once heard any Republican suggest any measure to prevent voter disenfranchisement.

Voting is more of a right than a priviledge. There are rules and laws to follow.

Driving a car is a priviledge.

Although--if you do certain crime(s)--you can lose the right to vote.

Even the poor and low income will need ID to collect or use food stamp cards, cash a check--or draw money form their account where the SS check was deposited.

I have voted every primary and general election--including a recall.

I was asked for ID every single time.

When we lived in Seattle--same thing--asked for ID when voting.

This is not a hard request/requirement.

When we lived in Seattle--same thing--asked for ID when voting.

King County votes by mail.
Who did you show ID to, the mailman?

Voter fraud is a tiny problem compared to voter disenfranchisement--Snoofy

Besides the New Black Panther--who or where are voters being disenfranchised?

There are no doubt situations--but by and large people who are legally able to vote--go vote if they want to.

People who live in shelters register to vote and register their kids for school. Most if not all have ID cards.

We need to as a country ensure that votes are legally cast and not fraudulent and not keeping folks who are able to vote from voting.

Snoofy--We lived there 1989 to 1995--went to the polling place.

Oregon votes all by mail too.

I'll defer to you on the ups and downs and ins and outs of flufferdom.

#20 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-24 06:23 PM

Once again a pathetically banal response from Dr. Van Helsing. Should we be surprised? Nah... not really.

Besides the New Black Panther--who or where are voters being disenfranchised?

Once again a pathetically banal response...
#26 | Posted by moomanfl

Your pathetic preoccupation with fluffing deserves nothing more, chump.

Excuse me Sir/Mame, may I please see some form of ID so we can insure the integrity of the Democratic process therefore insuring that it is alive and well for future generations and that humanity does not descend into absolute chaos? - polling official

This is disenfranchisement! - Snoofy

Excuse me Sir/Mame, may I please see some form of ID so we can insure the integrity of the Democratic process therefore insuring that it is alive and well for future generations and that humanity does not descend into absolute chaos? - polling official

This is disenfranchisement! - Snoofy

It's a smokescreen covering the massive behind the scenes disenfranchisement as seen in #27.
And itt's pretending to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
While doing nothing to solve the real problem of ongoing systemic disenfranchisement.
This country has a long history of disenfranchising voters, and a long history of people like Dirk being okay with it.

Some problems with your examples Snoofy:

September 26, 2008 --- Any word whether this request was granted? If not then it is hardly an example of disenfranchising voters regardless of whether a deeper analysis provides some arguable rationale for the request.

September 8, 2008 --- It just says that 12,000 remained off the roles. It provides no evidence that they were kept off in error. Instead it tries to substitute racially charged statistics that in reality have no bearing on the question of whether the registrations should have been kept or not. Maybe black people and hispanics are more likely to move without updating their registration. Who knows. The clip you provided doesn't say.

September 10, 2008(?) --- Again, request denied. No disenfranchisement, even ignoring the debate on whether it was a reasonable request.

So far you are 0 for 3, Snoofy. Good thing this isn't baseball or you would be heading back to the bleachers.

Excuse me Sir/Mame, may I please see some form of ID so we can insure the integrity of the Democratic process therefore insuring that it is alive and well for future generations and that humanity does not descend into absolute chaos? - polling official

This is disenfranchisement! - Snoofy

#29 | Posted by Dirk at 2011-04-24 06:48 PM

Bullshit. Everyone that votes in a race they were not entitled to vote in disenfranchises a legitimate voter in that race. They do this by counteracting a legitimate vote.

What I find funny is that Moonman couldn't afford the 800 bucks a year for homeowners insurance. I'll bet he learned a valuable lesson on that one.

Your pathetic preoccupation with fluffing deserves nothing more, chump.

#28 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-24 06:48 PM

Hahahaha... I had you pegged for this response yesterday. You are so damn predictable, Doc.

Seriously, that was a pathetically trite attempt at a response from you? And you fancy yourself an author? Next thing you know you will be trying tosay "No, you weren't worth a better response."

Come on, something above a grammar school level of creativity please.

Posted by moomanfl at 2011-04-22 03:29 PM

"800 bucks a year for homeowners insurance"

It has been my experience that if you can't self-insure you're living beyond your means.

What I find funny is that Moonman couldn't afford the 800 bucks a year for homeowners insurance. I'll bet he learned a valuable lesson on that one.

#33 | Posted by jackass at 2011-04-24 06:59 PM

If that isn't the sad, sad sign of someone desperate for a snappy retort... well, it is ALMOST enough to make me cry for you, DonkeyFluffer.

Almost.

Well... not really all that close.

Actually, not at all. It just makes me want to laugh at you harder. Heh heh

Poor Mooman. No wonder the fluffer obsessed drone can't keep a marriage together. Poor bastard's clueless.

Is this comparable to 57 states?

Maybe black people and hispanics are more likely to move without updating their registration. Who knows.
And that's a valid reason to disenfranchise someone?

Poor Mooman. No wonder the fluffer obsessed drone can't keep a marriage together. Poor bastard's clueless.

#37 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-24 07:07 PM

Better effor, Dr. Van Helsing. I would give you a 3 out of 10 this time. Still rather pathetic on punch value, but it is cute that you keep trying. Sort of like that little steam engine in the story books.

Steam engines and fluffing? Your interests are truly infantile. But good luck on that human relationship thang you can't quite get the hang of.

And that's a valid reason to disenfranchise someone?

It is not disenfranchisement to keep people from voting in a race they are not entitled to vote in. If they moved and didn't do their due diligence in following the law to update their registration so they could vote in the proper precinct and the proper race, the only one responsible for disenfranchising them is themselves.

Regardless of their success, I provided multiple examples of systemic attempts to disenfranchise voter

You are moving the goal posts. You were asked to provide examples where voters were disenfranchised... not where it was claimed to be attempted but didn't actually occur. Your argument is pointless.

Excuse me Sir/Mame....we understand that you are not wise to the availability of free state IDs that are handed out to anyone and everyone that has the ability to walk and breath however could you please vote on the leader of the free world for us....all in the name of "progress" - Snoofy

Steam engines and fluffing? Your interests are truly infantile. But good luck on that human relationship thang you can't quite get the hang of.

#41 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-24 07:19 PM

Now you moved back down to a 1 out of 10. I guess extreme indulgence alcohol and horse tranquilizers does tend to make one a bit erratic. Tell me again what a successful author you are. That is always good for a laugh.

Pretty sad that moonmoron brings up sucking donkey cock in every post. You have to wonder what he is doing behind closed doors or barn doors that is.

sucking donkey cock

You have to wonder

#45 | Posted by jackass

It is not disenfranchisement to keep people from voting in a race they are not entitled to vote in. If they moved and didn't do their due diligence in following the law to update their registration so they could vote in the proper precinct and the proper race, the only one responsible for disenfranchising them is themselves.

The link I provided showed 15% computer matching error rate. That would make it the State's fault for disenfranchising someone.
More to the point, an error-prone bureaucracy provides an easy way for Republicans to target Democrat-heavy districts for their disenfranchisement efforts.

You were asked to provide examples where voters were disenfranchised... not where it was claimed to be attempted but didn't actually occur.

Excuse me Sir/Mame....we understand that you are not wise to the availability of free state IDs that are handed out to anyone and everyone

Free state ID? Which of the 57 states are offering that? Mine certainly doesn't.

Pretty sad that moonmoron brings up sucking donkey cock in every post. You have to wonder what he is doing behind closed doors or barn doors that is.

#45 | Posted by jackass at 2011-04-24 07:27 PM

Says the guy named "Jackass". You are what you eat, vato. Of course my name is explained by love of a decent porterhouse; by your job. Say hello to Pedro for me. I guess he gave you the night off from the show for Easter. Who said the guy doesn't have heart. Then again, it was probably unpaid. heh heh

You are what you eat, vato. Of course my name is explained by love of a decent porterhouse; by your job.

Bah... should have read:

"You are what you eat, vato. Of course my name is explained by love of a decent porterhouse; yours is explained by your job."

Real life often provides distractions from the pursuit of the moment. When that happens on here, typos WILL occur.

The link I provided showed 15% computer matching error rate.

Which was obviously caught before hand. Your point?

Free state ID? Which of the 57 states are offering that? Mine certainly doesn't.

#48 | Posted by snoofy

Effective July 1, 2010, pursuant to Public Act 96-0183, the Illinois Secretary of State's Office will begin issuing no fee state identification cards to qualified homeless individuals.

Because it's a lot harder to cheat when you have to. That's why Democrats are so opposed.

#5 | POSTED BY RIGHTISRIGHT AT 2011-04-24 01:11 PM | REPLY | FLAG: ANOTHER IGNORANT RANT BY REPUBLICLOWN APOLOGIST WHO DOESN'T KNOW SHIT

You just never run out of nonsense to vomit out your brain

States that dont' require photo id... the majority are ... you guessed it...RED

Alabama*
Alaska*
Arizona*
Arkansas*
Colorado*
Connecticut
Delaware
Kentucky*
Missouri*
Montana*
North Dakota*
Ohio*
Oklahoma*
South Carolina*
Tennessee
Texas*
Utah*
Virginia*
Washington

My guess with their 3rd world economies, with dependency on subsidies generated with the federal taxes milked from blue states and the penchant for conspiracy theories with paranoid delusions of their own self importance the republiclowns are afraid to get photo ID's.. and are going to be pissed that their utility bill won't suffice... especially since they relied on public assistance to pay that bill.

RiR you are one of the dumbest fucks here.

#52 | POSTED BY DIRK

now we need the other 49 to follow suite.

now we need the other 49 to follow suite.

#54 | Posted by NotMyRealName

Oh I agree....because we need more crack whores and drunks voting "their conscience". ;)

Since no one has so far, can anyone cite for me exactly where Americans are guaranteed the right to vote on the federal level?

"we need more crack whores and drunks voting "their conscience". ;)"

they probably won't even remember when election day is.

every citizen over 18 should be able to vote, period.

The link I provided showed 15% computer matching error rate.

Which was obviously caught before hand. Your point?

They aren't all caught beforehand.

They aren't all caught beforehand.

Snoofy,

Now you are just backtracking and throwing the same situations that were already addressed earlier up again. Do you think the answer has changed for some reason? Just so we are clear this is what you are offering now (in part):

Those people, part of more than 12,000 statewide, must cast provisional ballots unless they can quickly resolve discrepancies between their completed voter registration forms and driver license or Social Security numbers in government databases.

On September 8, 2008, the Florida Secretary of State instructed election officials to reject voter registration applications that do not pass an error-prone computer match process. In the first three weeks of the policy, 15% of registrations were initially bounced because of failed computer matches; election officials were able to catch and correct obvious typos in about ¾ of these cases, but to date, more than 12,000 voters are being kept off the rolls. An analysis of the list reveals that African Americans make up 39% of blocked voters, and Latinos make up 34% of blocked voters whose race is known./blockquote>
This was my response at that time:

September 8, 2008 --- It just says that 12,000 remained off the roles. It provides no evidence that they were kept off in error. Instead it tries to substitute racially charged statistics that in reality have no bearing on the question of whether the registrations should have been kept or not. Maybe black people and hispanics are more likely to move without updating their registration. Who knows. The clip you provided doesn't say.

I see no reason to change my response at this time.

It just says that 12,000 remained off the roles. It provides no evidence that they were kept off in error.

Well, here's the evidence.

A second priority that Mr. Tokaji addressed was making sure that voters' names are not omitted or wrongly removed from state voter registration lists. He cited a study that found that this was the greatest source of lost votes in the 2000 election, with over 1.5 million voters affected.

I see no reason to change my response at this time.

Naturally, since you are OK with mostly Democratic voters being disenfranchised, whatever the reason.

Well, here's the evidence.

A second priority that Mr. Tokaji addressed was making sure that voters' names are not omitted or wrongly removed from state voter registration lists. He cited a study that found that this was the greatest source of lost votes in the 2000 election, with over 1.5 million voters affected.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-24 09:20 PM

Sorry, an abbreviated fourth-hand account isn't evidence. What study did he cite? Who conducted it? What was the methodology? What was the exact wording of the conclusion? Any chance that there was bias in the study? Were there corroborating studies done?

Not to mention this doesn't prove that the 12,000 in Florida were removed erroneously. The 1.5 million that Tokaji claims was in the 2000 election, not the 2008 election.

Too many problems with your accounts.

Sorry, an abbreviated fourth-hand account isn't evidence. What study did he cite? Who conducted it? What was the methodology? What was the exact wording of the conclusion? Any chance that there was bias in the study? Were there corroborating studies done?

That's just pathetic.

That's just pathetic.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-24 09:43 PM

Invective with no substance to back it up is what is truly pathetic.

You offered "evidence" that was fourth-hand, and that can't be examined. What exactly do you find pathetic about my not accepting it?

Invective with no substance to back it up is what is truly pathetic.

Snoofy,

Interesting what that study actually says. I paints a different picture than what you are trying to paint it as. Far from being some sort of disenfranchisement it is mostly error that is common and inherent. It also seems to be something that the authors of the study say we can't totally eliminate.

We lost between one-and-a-half and three million votes because of the registration process in 2000. According to the U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, 7.4 percent of the forty million registered voters who did not vote stated that they did not vote because of registration problems. Voter registration is an enormous database management systemâ€"a local census, if you like. Errors in databases occur even under the most scrupulous management. In practice, voters are not always careful in filling out registration information or in keeping their registration information current.

Sorry, the paragraph starts at the bottom of page 8 and continues to page 9.

Care to offer any more "evidence"?

Far from being some sort of disenfranchisement it is mostly error that is common and inherent.

Which Republicans exploit to disenfranchise eligible, likely Democratic voters.
The evidence is right before your eyes.
Your refusal to connect the dots does not mean there aren't any dots.

The Caltech study focuses on the barriers to voting, including the problems with voter registration databases.
It does not go into the many instances where Republicans use or attempt to use known bad data to disenfranchise vast swaths of voters based on.
Notice how the Republicans don't try to clean up the data; rather they try to disenfranchise people with it.
The actions speak quite clearly to their intent.
Except, not to you, because you're not listening.

I mean, here you have a Republican Speaker of the House in Minnesota saying that voting is not a right.
That might be a pretty big clue which party would like to disenfranchise voters.
But to get the clue, you'd have to be listening.

Which Democrats use to whine about disenfranchisement, when Republicans insist on the law being followed.

FTFY

What a dumbass! He didn't misspeak and had nothing to apologize for. He's absolutely right.

Voting used to be a privilege and only property owners had the 'right' to vote because they had a vested interest in what was going on. Maybe we ought to return to that principle and keep the rif-raff - black, white and brown trash - from screwing things up.

I mean, here you have a Republican Speaker of the House in Minnesota saying that voting is not a right.

It isn't. Show me where it is listed as such.

As I said before, if it is a right then there are millions of pre-K to 12th graders being disenfranchised in every election. Time for a new suffrage movement. I am sure you will be right on board to make sure that Kindergartners aren't denied their right to vote for Barney the Dinosaur for president.

I am not saying that people shouldn't be denied the chance to vote without just cause, but it is hardly a right. As a matter of fact voting by the public didn't need to happen at all. That was something granted by the individual States originally.

Republicans selectively insist on the law being followed when it helps their chances at the polls.

Correct.

It isn't. Show me where it is listed as such.

I am not saying that people shouldn't be denied the chance to vote without just cause, but it is hardly a right. As a matter of fact voting by the public didn't need to happen at all.

It didn't have to happen, but it did in fact happen.

Just waking up from your snooze, Mr. Van Winkle?

Only a leftist who cannot comprehend the English language would say "Repug says voting is a privilege" when all that was said is an ID should be required to vote to help eliminate voter fraud. -- #7 | Posted by KBM

If you read the full 3 1/2 lines, you'll find this:

I think it's a privilege, it's not a right.

Republicans selectively insist on the law being followed when it helps their chances at the polls.

Correct.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-24 11:56 PM

That is also correct for Democrats as well. The omission of which by you shows what a hack you are.

It isn't. Show me where it is listed as such.

www.usconstitution.net

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-24 11:57 PM

Sorry, but the President is voted for by the Electors (of the Electoral College) by Amendment 12.

Amendment 15 says that Race can not be a bar to voting.

Amendment 17 is the only Amendment that gives the People the right to vote, and that is only for Senator.

Anything I missed? Please provide the relevant passage that says people have a right to vote in every election. Hell, lets make is simpler... just provide a reference to the passage that says you have a right to vote for the President.

It didn't have to happen, but it did in fact happen.

Just waking up from your snooze, Mr. Van Winkle?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-24 11:59 PM

Bullshit. You have yet to provide ANY evidence of disenfranchisement without just cause.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-24 11:57 PM

#79 | Posted by moomanfl at 2011-04-25 12:20 AM

After citing a study that turns out said that exact same thing I had been saying, then your above reference to the constitution which didn't say what you think it did, you have a horrible batting average for document references.

I get the impression that you have a tendency to cite documents that you have never read only because you THINK you know what is in them.

And I get the impression you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

So, I guess your position is this Amendment references a right to vote, but that the right to vote itself doesn't actually exist.

You have yet to provide ANY evidence of disenfranchisement without just cause.

WOW, this is what constitutes reporting on the internet. The 26th amendment holds only to federal elections, not state, not county nor local. Zeller used his language very badly in trying to make his point of wanted voters to present an ID in response to ACORN tactics (they now go by several names). ACORN has proliferated such fraud, where thousands of votes have been proven to be faked (Donald Duck!), dozens of ACORN folks arrested and convicted. The voters have lost faith in the process. The current right to vote was not set in 1789, but has evolved and is currently based on age...the age was 21 until the 26 amendment was passed in response to the Vietnam draft, the "right" to vote is denied to felons, underage, mentally incompetent and non citizens. So in fairness, the right to vote in a federal election is absolute, at the state level, it is certainly not absolute.

ACORN has proliferated such fraud, where thousands of votes have been proven to be faked (Donald Duck!)

Thousands of voter registrations have been faked. And then get noticed when they're added to the voting rolls.

Not saying it hasn't happened, but I'm not aware of thousands of people showing up to vote under those fake registrations.

Only a leftist who cannot comprehend the English language would say "Repug says voting is a privilege" when all that was said is an ID should be required to vote to help eliminate voter fraud. Sheesh.

#7 | Posted by KBM at 2011-04-24 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

LOL.

Are you ACTUALLY going to pretend that he didn't say EXACTLY what headline accuses him of.....TWICE!?!

It's funny that YOU question others reading comprehension. This from the clown that routinely screeches "Obama thinks there are 57 states". LOL.

Actually according to the Strawman pov ~ the Minnesota Republican is right. It's a privilege ~ just like driving is...

The USA Isn't a Country, It's a Corporation!

The original Constitution drafted by the Founding Fathers, was written in this manner:
The Constitution for the united states of America.
The altered version reads: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It is the corporate constitution. It is NOT the same document you might think it is. The corporate constitution operates in an economic capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it is the same parchment that governs the Republic. It absolutely is not.

ELOQUENT FACTS OF THE SOCIALIST LIBYA: (Minnesota so much better in spite of Republicans, of course, though we have some really high taxes...:>)

* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* Unemployment benefit - $ 730.
* Each family member subsidized by the state gets annually $ 1.000
* Salary for nurses - $ 1.000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7.000.
* The bride and groom receive a $ 64 thousand to purchase flats.
* Major taxes and levies prohibited.
* To open a personal business a one-time financial assistance of $ 20.000
* Education and medicine are free.
* Educ.Internships abroad - at government expense.
* Stores for large families with symbolic prices for basic foodstuffs.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* Loans for buying a car and an apartment - no interest.
* Real estate services are prohibited.,

Real life often provides distractions from the pursuit of the moment. When that happens on here, typos WILL occur.
#50 | Posted by moomanfl | Flag: Homo Sapiens Typo

And I get the impression you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971. History

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Compared to yours, my mind is a veritable razor.

Using nearly identical wording to the 18th Amendment, the 26th Amendment simply says that you may not be barred from voting based on age. It doesn't say when or for what office you get to vote for. That is because the right to vote comes from the STATE.

Presidential elections are conducted by the Electoral College, with votes being cast by the Electors. The method for choosing Electors is left up to the States. If they wanted they could have the State Legislature set the whole thing rather than hold a public vote.

In other words all you have done is shown that IF a vote is held, that you can't be denied due to race or age or sex (per the 19th Amendment). The wording is very narrow and ONLY speaks to age, race, or sex rather that just saying that people have a general right. Instead an amendment is needed for each. The vote can be denied for just about any other reason which is why felons can be denied the chance to vote.

That's because, to you, every cause of voter disenfranchisement is just.
www.usccr.gov

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2011-04-25 01:39 AM

Wah, wah, wah.

Here you provide a link to the same crap that has been answered already. Your argument was destroyed and the study showed I was right. Get over it.

Tell me again what a successful author you are. That is always good for a laugh.
#44 | Posted by moomanfl

You're like Lenny with the rabbits in Of Mice and Men. If you measure success in dollar-per-word rate -- which is how it often works with magazines -- I've already told you. If you measure it as millions of books sold, I'm about as successful an author as you are a husband and parent. And thinking about that's always good for a laugh.

You're like Lenny with the rabbits in Of Mice and Men.

Which is at least a degree more intelligent than you.

The biggest difference between me and you is that when challenged on your status as an author, despite claiming not to care, you obviously care enough about the challenge to try and defend against it.

When challenged about my status as a husband or father, I don't bother because I couldn't care less what you, or anyone else, think.

In the words of Forrest Gump (yet another mental giant compared to you): "That's all I got to say about that."

I see you've lapsed into you "nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo" phase.

No wonder you've made such a pig's tit of your life, chump.

When challenged about my status as a husband or father, I don't bother because I fucked it up so bad I can't.
#93 | Posted by moomanfl

Happy to fix that one for you.

I see you've lapsed into you "nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo" phase.

No wonder you've made such a pig's tit of your life, chump.

#94 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-25 08:18 AM

Sure I have, Doc. Have another drink. Heh heh

Of course "nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo" is your normal M.O. as I have pointed out repeated in other words. Evidence: your number #95 is just the latest in the string.

How does it feel to be a parody of a real person, Doc?

How does it feel to be a parody of a real person, Doc?
#96 | Posted by moomanfl

You tell me, loser boy.

You tell me, loser boy.

#97 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-25 08:33 AM

Translation: "nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo"

Bwahahahahahaha!

As your obsessive behavior only accelerates your psychological death spiral I'll offer you this: I suspect what you need is probably lying under your bed inside a little brown bottle with the name of a nearby pharmacy printed on the label. Tell your caregiver that self-medication -- remember that phrase, because it's proven your undoing -- is not, repeat not, for you.

Wow! I see what you did there, Doc. Because we make cracks about you and alcohol (and horse tranquilizers), you make a crack about pills.

I am just stunned. That was fucking brilliant. Bravo.

I am in awe of your cutting wit.

*golf clap*

#101 | Posted by moomanfl| Flag: The Voices Are Starting To Whisper

#101 | Posted by moomanfl| Flag: The Voices Are Starting To Whisper

#102 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-25 08:54 AM

Nah, that is just all in your head, Doc.

#103 | Posted by moomanfl| Flag: Still Chasing His Tail Up His Ass

#103 | Posted by moomanfl| Flag: Still Chasing His Tail Up His Ass

#104 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-25 09:05 AM

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, Doc, but as far as obsessions go, are the one doing the chasing.

You started posting on this thread only to troll me, and that has been the entire substance of your posts the entire time.

I am not bothered by this, I merely point it out to provide some perspective as to exactly whom is chasing tails. I also point it out to explain my extreme amusement: I have really gotten into your head that you would go through this kind of effort.

Thanks for the laughs, Doc. Seriously. Heh heh

I hate to be the one to point this out to you, Doc, but as far as obsessions go, you are the one doing the chasing.

#105 | Posted by moomanfl at 2011-04-25 09:10 AM

FTFM

"I have really gotten into your head"

That must be why you're still mooing.

That must be why you're still mooing.

#107 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2011-04-25 09:13 AM

Holy shit! Doc replies again with more trolling. Hahahaha

You are just a veritable comic strip of hilarity. Keep up the good work, Doc.

That voice you hear in your head... it is me. Bwahahahaha!

(See what I did there?)

Well, time to get to work for the day.

You can have the last word if you want it, Doc. Thanks for the laughs. I think your new nickname should be "Chuckles", because that is what you give.

Bwahahahaha!
(See what I did there?)
#108 | Posted by moomanfl

You stopped mooing and brayed like a jackass?

That's not a tick, chump. You're just doing what comes naturally.

Grasping at straws is so unattractive.

srupid libs

The vote can be denied for just about any other reason

Reasons like clerical errors in a database which occur through no fault of the eligible, registered voter?

Reasons like removal of names from the voting rolls because the eligible voter shares the same first and last name and date of birth of a convicted felon? Is name and DOB sufficient basis to determine the registered voter is in fact the same person as the felon?

Reasons like clerical errors in a database which occur through no fault of the eligible, registered voter?

Except if you read the study you were pushing as an example, they gave a reason that suggested that it WAS the fault of the voter in most cases. I guess it is expedient for you to ignore your own "evidence" once it becomes inconvenient for your argument.

Regardless, yes. If there is an error that creates a question about the legitimacy of the voter then they should be removed until it is resolved. In that case I would advocate attempting to contact said voter to give them an opportunity to help correct the problem, but again any vote that is cast by someone that is not entitled to a vote disenfranchises a legitimate vote. So you just want to trade off one disenfranchisement for another. I say to err on the side of the unquestionably legitimate voter.

Reasons like removal of names from the voting rolls because the eligible voter shares the same first and last name and date of birth of a convicted felon?

See my last point. Yes, remove them at least temporarily until the matter is cleared. To do otherwise risks disenfranchising a legitimate vote. The fact is, two people with the same name AND birth date is pretty rare so you are picking on an very uncommon occurrence.

MAD AS HELL: "The much more probable cheats will be those voting by absentee ballot. So how will their IDs be checked? Anyone?"

Look on your drivers lisense, see the ID number? Your voter card would have one too. You would use that.(Duh). Actually resorting to an argument that the technology doesn't exist is pretty ridiculous and shows your desperation.

Why are Freedom lovers in favor of voter authentication, and you BiG Gov guys so opposed??

.....I wonder.....

The burning question of the day is.... what the fuck is a "priviledge"?

The fact is, two people with the same name AND birth date is pretty rare

That is a pretty weak statement. With 300,000,000 people in this country "pretty rare" events happen all the time.

It seems like you favor such poor methodology to disenfranchise potentially valid voters simply because it disenfranchises as many people as possible.

Simply finding a match and then removing that voter from the rolls -- without even notifying them -- provides no way for the legitimate voter can protect their rights.

You err on the side of disenfranchising legitimate voters, which is contrary to the purpose and spirit of participatory democracy. And you do it because your party does better under those circumstances.

Actually the states grant you the right to vote according the Constitutional guides, see below.

http://www.usconstitution.net

The Right To Vote

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to.