Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

That's hysterical

Piston Honda wrote:

Phanatik wrote:This brings to mind the lefty dichotomy of opposing capital punishment for heinous criminals, but then supporting the abortion of innocent human babies.

Sort of like how conservatives seem to be pro-life until birth?

You have discerned our evil plan. We want the unborn child to live until we can quash it's little life with dirty water and polluted air. And if that doesn't do it, we'll make it go to school next to a nuclear plant and drive fossil fuel based cars!!! (the horror!)

Liberals always seem to be angry and dissatisfied about something. No doubt their internal conflicts are driving them mad.

Piston Honda wrote:Yup, those Tea Partiers and other conservatives only picked legitimate issues to get angry over. Very calm, cool and collected. Made rational arguments at all those town hall meetings.

Don't bring up the Tea Party, as Manchu hasn't ok'd that topic yet.

Piston Honda wrote:Two sides of the same coin.

Coins are a strawman.

Best,

Phanatik wrote:Don't bring up the Tea Party, as Manchu hasn't ok'd that topic yet.

Not only do you have my blessing but I also have a question for any Tea Partiers out there:

What is the Tea Party position on legislation requiring government-issued IDs to prevent non-existent crimes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that one's too hard, try this rephrased version:

What is the Tea Party position on legislation creating restrictions on voting to make mobilization of the Democratic Party's base more difficult?

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Don't bring up the Tea Party, as Manchu hasn't ok'd that topic yet.

Not only do you have my blessing but I have a question for any Tea Partiers out there:

What is the Tea Party position on legislation requiring government-issued IDs to prevent non-existent crimes?

<whew> I've been dying to say something about the Tea Party since the beginning of this thread!

As far as political parties and being anti-government-issued-IDs are concerned, I'd think the Libertarians would be the go-to guys.

It's entirely consistent for Tea Party people to be small government AND expect elections to be fair and accurate.

Regards,

Please answer the actual question(s).

Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?

Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?

Manchu wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Don't bring up the Tea Party, as Manchu hasn't ok'd that topic yet.

Not only do you have my blessing but I also have a question for any Tea Partiers out there:

What is the Tea Party position on legislation requiring government-issued IDs to prevent non-existent crimes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If that one's too hard, try this rephrased version:

What is the Tea Party position on legislation creating restrictions on voting to make mobilization of the Democratic Party's base more difficult?

Oh, so it's not about racism after all? It's about mobility.

Yes, it's entirely unfair to expect democrats to not bus in people from different districts/states to vote where they are not registered.
Yes, it's unfair to expect democrats to not vote dead people, cartoon characters, and sports persons in states other than where they are registered to vote.
Yes, it's unfair to expect a liberal judge to not hold polls open beyond their legally mandated times in heavily democrat districts in order to run people thru.
Yes, it's unfair to expect the democrats to not concede a race because their candidate died before election day. Lets just let him win, and then give the seat to his wife.
Yes, it's unfair to expect the electricity to not mysteriously go off in a heavily republican district in a race Harry Reid just may lose.
Yes, it's unfair to expect democrats to not slash the tires of vehicles to be used for republican mobilization. (They're racists anyway.)

Yes, it's unfair that all of that can happen, and more, and still expect that someone that legally shouldn't vote might try to do so.

Regards,

So, you don't have answers to these questions?

Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).

Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?

Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?

I answered the second one already. I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not about racism or keeping a boot on the throat of the financially-challenged.

As to the first question:
1. What evidence do you have that not a single person has ever tried to vote when they would not otherwise be allowed? So, we have criminals from A to Z, but NO ONE has ever committed voter fraud? Wow! Never? Or just not recently?

2. With all of the illegal aliens democrats are encouraging to come to and stay in this country, they don't also try to vote? Ever? Not even just once?

3. Finally, let me answer positively in this way, as this is dakka: At this time, real Star Wars type lightsabers do not exist. Therefore, no one has committed a crime with one. I have absolutely no problem with the government pro-actively making it illegal for someone to commit a crime with one, should they one day be invented. I really doubt Uncle Joe will smile in his grave if someone in America proposes a law now to cover the possibility. So, for the sake of argument, lets say no one is committing voter fraud now. So what? Someone may some day.

Best,

Phanatik wrote:

Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).

Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?

Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?

I answered the second one already. I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not about racism or keeping a boot on the throat of the financially-challenged.

As to the first question:
1. What evidence do you have that not a single person has ever tried to vote when they would not otherwise be allowed? So, we have criminals from A to Z, but NO ONE has ever committed voter fraud? Wow! Never? Or just not recently?

2. With all of the illegal aliens democrats are encouraging to come to and stay in this country, they don't also try to vote? Ever? Not even just once?

3. Finally, let me answer positively in this way, as this is dakka: At this time, real Star Wars type lightsabers do not exist. Therefore, no one has committed a crime with one. I have absolutely no problem with the government pro-actively making it illegal for someone to commit a crime with one, should they one day be invented. I really doubt Uncle Joe will smile in his grave if someone in America proposes a law now to cover the possibility. So, for the sake of argument, lets say no one is committing voter fraud now. So what? Someone may some day.

Best,

Now that was impressive.

@Phanatik:

So, you'll talk about anything (even lightsabers) rather than the topic at hand? Okay, I'm fine with that.

Let me know how your lightsaber registration initiative works out. I'd be glad to sign any petitions you need to pass around.

Manchu wrote:@Phanatik:

So, you'll talk about anything (even lightsabers) rather than the topic at hand? Okay, I'm fine with that.

Let me know how your lightsaber registration initiative works out. I'd be glad to sign any petitions you need to pass around.

Do you always have trouble with allegory? or just today?
And what dakkanaut wouldn't go out the first day and buy one when they become available?

In any case,
Regards,

What I am having trouble with is the notion that we should create laws addressing non-existent crimes, whether voter fraud or misuse of fictional weapons. I am also having trouble getting you to answer a few simple questions on their faces.

Phanatik wrote:
And what dakkanaut wouldn't go out the first day and buy one when they become available?

I certainly wouldn't. What do I need a dangerous weapon for? I'd stand a pretty good chance of hurting myself with it.

Phanatik wrote:

Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).

Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?

Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?

I answered the second one already. I'm glad you're finally admitting that it's not about racism or keeping a boot on the throat of the financially-challenged.

As to the first question:
1. What evidence do you have that not a single person has ever tried to vote when they would not otherwise be allowed? So, we have criminals from A to Z, but NO ONE has ever committed voter fraud? Wow! Never? Or just not recently?

2. With all of the illegal aliens democrats are encouraging to come to and stay in this country, they don't also try to vote? Ever? Not even just once?

3. Finally, let me answer positively in this way, as this is dakka: At this time, real Star Wars type lightsabers do not exist. Therefore, no one has committed a crime with one. I have absolutely no problem with the government pro-actively making it illegal for someone to commit a crime with one, should they one day be invented. I really doubt Uncle Joe will smile in his grave if someone in America proposes a law now to cover the possibility. So, for the sake of argument, lets say no one is committing voter fraud now. So what? Someone may some day.

Best,

There are already laws against voter fraud.

@Phanatik

I do like how you have laid out your argument, however:

"SUPPORT VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS

BECAUSE ONE DAY LIGHTSABERS MIGHT BE REAL"

All we need for the poster is a picture of a poor black Jedi or maybe a undocumented immigrant Jedi.

There are already laws against killing people.

Manchu wrote:What I am having trouble with is the notion that we should create laws addressing non-existent crimes, whether voter fraud or misuse of fictional weapons. I am also having trouble getting you to answer a few simple questions on their faces.

I would never support anyone interfering with the legal mobilization of voters desirous of voting democrat.
I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.

Notice the second statement also applies to other than democrat voters.

G'day!

Chongara wrote:I certainly wouldn't. What do I need a dangerous weapon for? I'd stand a pretty good chance of hurting myself with it.

Dude, don't get anybody started on evolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:I would never support anyone interfering with the legal mobilization of voters desirous of voting democrat.

I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.

Okay, now we're making progress. Now how about a law that does not prevent voter fraud but does interfere with legally mobilizing voters who traditionally vote Democrat?

And, additionally, does you answer change if a Republican tells you that the law is only supposed to prevent voter fraud?

Phanatik wrote:
I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.

Mandatory DNA sequencing of each person at birth. When they register to vote and each voter registration is paired with the unique DNA sequence archived in the NGISA*. When the election rolls around each person will submit to a DNA test at the voting location that checks against the registered DNA sequence for that registration, and verifies back with the NGISA.

Glad we have your support on this. Care to help be draft up the petition?



*This would be a new organisation "National Genetic Identification System Administration"

Manchu wrote:@Phanatik

I do like how you have laid out your argument, however:

"SUPPORT VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS

BECAUSE ONE DAY LIGHTSABERS MIGHT BE REAL"

All we need for the poster is a picture of a poor black Jedi or maybe a undocumented immigrant Jedi.

how about:

"A LIGHTSABER IN EVERY POT!"

Manchu wrote:Please answer the actual question(s).

Are you in favor of legislation requiring government-issued ID to prevent non-existent crime?

Are you in favor of legislation that makes it more difficult for Democrats to mobilize their actual constituents?

Manchu, these are the most loaded questions I've read in a long time, ala 'When did you stop beating your wife/GF."

Manchu wrote:

Chongara wrote:I certainly wouldn't. What do I need a dangerous weapon for? I'd stand a pretty good chance of hurting myself with it.

Dude, don't get anybody started on evolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phanatik wrote:I would never support anyone interfering with the legal mobilization of voters desirous of voting democrat.

I would always support a law that prevents voter fraud, even if it only catches one culprit from today until The Big Rip occurs.

Okay, now we're making progress. Now how about a law that does not prevent voter fraud but does interfere with legally mobilizing voters who traditionally vote Democrat?

And, additionally, does you answer change if a Republican tells you that the law is only supposed to prevent voter fraud?

At least we are making progress...

But then you go and try to trick me...

kronk wrote:Manchu, these are the most loaded questions I've read in a long time, ala 'When did you stop beating your wife/GF."

They are meant to be loaded. We have to go step by step. First, we have to show that Tea Partiers and/or Republicans don't want to legislate regarding non-existent crimes. Next we have to make sure they don't just want to disenfranchise vulnerable people who are likely to vote Democrat. If they say they don't want to do either of those we can go on to see if they can provide evidence of voter fraud, other than that committed by their own agents or based on anecdotes. If there is no such evidence (as proved in the case regarding Indiana) then we have established that voter ID requirements are legislation regarding non-existent crime. And then we have to move on to what the law must actually address (since it clearly is not voter fraud): namely the disenfranchisement of vulnerable people who are likely to vote Democrat. If that's wrong, then we have two strong reasons -- as Tea Party Republicans -- to oppose voter ID requirements.

I see where you're coming from, Manchu, and I agree that voter fraud is so rare as to be a non-issue, but do you really believe this is a Republican ploy to disenfranchise blacks or poor people from voting for Democrats?

This whole thing is a waste of time, I agree.

Something so sinister as it's being made out to be, I just can't see.

Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?

Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?

The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits. I’m not going to sift through 20.5mm hits but even the progressive papers report low instances. That’s still instances, still people disenfranchised for no reason.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197406-373-0.stm
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286557/yes-virginia-there-really-voter-fraud-hans-von-spakovsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

But then again, don’t pay attention, after all I’m delusional for even thinking there might be voter fraud. Good thing no one called me that on Dakka. That would, after all, be impolite.

Manchu wrote: -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers.

Manchu wrote: So what's up?

I don't have the first damn clue. Sounds like a big old waste of time or perhaps, since they know this has no chance in hell of getting passed, their trying to play on their own constituents fears to get them out and vote. Instead of "Rock the Vote", "Shock them into voting" or something less lame than what I just said.

kronk wrote:

Manchu wrote: -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers.

Manchu wrote: So what's up?

I don't have the first damn clue. Sounds like a big old waste of time or perhaps, since they know this has no chance in hell of getting passed, their trying to play on their own constituents fears to get them out and vote. Instead of "Rock the Vote", "Shock them into voting" or something less lame than what I just said.

Its passed in two dozen states, and withstood SCOTUS review. Evidently someone thinks its an issue.

Frazzled, just digging around, I could only find articles where a handful of people over the last decade were tried and convicted for it. It certainly doesn't seem that wide spread.

I'm not against having to show ID, but I just don't think it's as big an issue as it's being made out to be.

Frazzled wrote:

Well, kronk, I don't mean to suggest that this is what Republicans are necessarily trying to accomplish. But I can't see any other result of these laws. I know Republicans aren't naive or totally uninformed. I know they know there is no voter fraud -- put it another way, I know this isn't an attempt to ban lightsabers. So what's up?

The problem of course, is that your argument is based on the false premise that there is no voter fraud. A simple google search pulls 20.5mm hits. I’m not going to sift through 20.5mm hits but even the progressive papers report low instances. That’s still instances, still people disenfranchised for no reason.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-fraud-New-York/2011/12/22/id/421895
http://old.post-gazette.com/pg/11352/1197406-373-0.stm
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286557/yes-virginia-there-really-voter-fraud-hans-von-spakovsky
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960

But then again, don’t pay attention, after all I’m delusional for even thinking there might be voter fraud. Good thing no one called me that on Dakka. That would, after all, be impolite.

But, none of those voter fraud cases involve people voting in person using a false identity, which is what voter id laws would address (and, 2 of those 4 examples were the same example in two different articles). So, they're completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.