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.

Mannahnin wrote:

Personally Obama and Romney are the same kind of jackass with slightly different wrapping paper.

On one level I agree with this.

On another, people thought the same thing about Bush vs. Gore, and that most likely was the difference between making up justifications to and invading Iraq, and not doing so.

Eh I thought there were both donkey-caves too as it happens. There was at least a little more variety then with Romeny and Obama.

My point is that even though both the major parties are way more similar than I'd like, there are real and material differences between them.

If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have wasted all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.

Mannahnin wrote:My point is that even though both the major parties are way more similar than I'd like, there are real and material differences between them.

If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have wasted all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.

I honestly don't see it, both parties push for bigger government and more control. It's just what flavor they're calling that control.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:My point is that even though both the major parties are way more similar than I'd like, there are real and material differences between them.

If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have wasted all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.

I honestly don't see it, both parties push for bigger government and more control. It's just what flavor they're calling that control.

Given that they're both parties running for government and not anarchist groups that's sort of the nature of the beast. They're trying to control the country and via a democratic process we're supposed to choose what flavor the majority of us want.

It's the difference between red kool aid and slightly thinner red kool aid is the argument I'm making.

If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have sacraficed all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.

Using the word "waste" downgrades the the individual that paid the ultimate priced. Who knows. Those WMD's might be Syria

As in, they might be the country of Syria, or might explode within said country, or what?

KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's the difference between red kool aid and slightly thinner red kool aid is the argument I'm making.

Welcome to what you and your fellow citizens have built. This thread is a perfect example of why america deserves the gun it's putting to its own head. America is a democracy and this is what happens when the people in a democracy get accustomed to being lied to by the media.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Ouze a concealed carry license is an official ID issued by the state with all the protections they build in to state IDs against forgery. You can print up college IDs look a likes at home. That's the difference there and why trying to buy beer with a college ID doesn't work in most states.

Bollocks.
You have no clue what you're talking about.

The college ID(from a community college to boot) that I have is no different than my driving permit. They both have a holographic embossing, a bar code on the back, and a photographic identifier.

However, as of the 2008 elections I could have used either those or my voter registration/selective services cards.

Guess what? According to the people pushing this "voter ID law"--those are not "valid forms of identification" for voting.

Slow down. Think extra hard on this one.

A voter registration card is not considered to be a valid form of identification for voting.

ShumaGorath wrote:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's the difference between red kool aid and slightly thinner red kool aid is the argument I'm making.

Welcome to what you and your fellow citizens have built. This thread is a perfect example of why america deserves the gun it's putting to its own head. America is a democracy and this is what happens when the people in a democracy get accustomed to being lied to by the media.

I'm well aware.

A voter registration card is not considered to be a valid form of identification for voting

A registration card has no photo, and you find it odd that a law pushing photo ID doesn't have it count?

LordofHats wrote:

A voter registration card is not considered to be a valid form of identification for voting

A registration card has no photo, and you find it odd that a law pushing photo ID doesn't have it count?

I find it stupid that in a move to prevent voter registration fraud, a voter registration card is not considered valid identification.

Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.




*I don't mean 'you' as in anyone specific here, but the 'people in general' use.

Ouze wrote:C'mon, lets stop playing pretend, OK. We all know perfectly well what this law is designed to do, so lets stop winking and nodding at each other. You've known since the state law in Texas allowed gun licenses as a form of ID but not college ID's what they're doing with this, and who this is "helping".

Knowledge is power and frankly you're not using enough of it to light a night light. "Gun licenses" (I guess you mean CHLs as there is NO SUCH THING AS GUN LICENSES IN TEXAS) are actual state ID. College ID's are not state issued ID, plus there is no requirement that the holder of a college ID be a citizen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:http://www.texaschllicense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/new-tx-chl-license.jpg

This isn't gonna be that much harder to forge than the average drivers license, and people forge those all the time.

NO. It also has to have the magnetic strip with stored information. Its the same as a state ID.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also love that one group is freely throwing insults.

Frazzled wrote:

Ouze wrote:C'mon, lets stop playing pretend, OK. We all know perfectly well what this law is designed to do, so lets stop winking and nodding at each other. You've known since the state law in Texas allowed gun licenses as a form of ID but not college ID's what they're doing with this, and who this is "helping".

Knowledge is power and frankly you're not using enough of it to light a night light. "Gun licenses" (I guess you mean CHLs as there is NO SUCH THING AS GUN LICENSES IN TEXAS) are actual state ID. College ID's are not state issued ID, plus there is no requirement that the holder of a college ID be a citizen.

That differs by state. Some college IDs have nationality specific forms. Also, this is a strawman, there is no fraud in Pennsylvania and THE AUTHORS OF THE LAW ADMITTED IN PUBLIC THAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO QUASH DEMOCRATIC VOTES AND THAT THERE WAS NO VOTER FRAUD IN THAT STATE.

I also love that one group is freely throwing insults.

And the other group is consistently lying.

The thread started talking about Texas. Put down the bong pipe and try to keep up.

Frazzled wrote:The thread started talking about Texas. Put down the bong pipe and try to keep up.

CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.

The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.

These are the first two sentences of the topic frazzled.

People in the thread started talking about TX; not the thread began by talking about TX.

Mannahnin wrote:People in the thread started talking about TX; not the thread began by talking about TX.

By the end of page 1 is was talking about Penn again.

Well then i got an idea, if voter ID's are important to republicans why not do this, you had to pay a certain amount of taxes last year to qualify to vote(people not making enough to pay taxes or on elfare are excluded). IF you dont give to the GOVT you should have no say in how its run.

Well then i got an idea, if voter ID's are important to republicans why not do this, you had to pay a certain amount of taxes last year to qualify to vote(people not making enough to pay taxes or on elfare are excluded). IF you dont give to the GOVT you should have no say in how its run.

Won't work. Thats like going to Heinlans Federation for government

Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.

I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.

But those aren't the facts before us.

You know frankly if black people wanted to vote so much, I don't see why they just don't stop being poor?

Since as we all know being wealthy and successful is simply a matter of working hard and putting enough effort, if you can't afford a car to drive to get an ID it just means you don't want it enough. Frankly why should we give the vote who don't care enough and are too lazy to to not be poor?

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Everyone thinks they are the one that is aware, and that it is the other people that are screwing things up, but the others are saying the same thing about you*. This sort of mentality is part of the reason the cycle continues. Everyone thinks it is the other person so they don't change, and so nothing changes, or, it deteriorates.

I get what you're saying. The thing is, I could be swayed to see voter ID as being an appropriate measure if there was an actual significant problem with in-person voter fraud. If that were a real thing that was actually significantly happening, then what I consider to be an unnecessary burden placed upon the voter to no useful end would then become a necessary burden placed upon the voter a useful end - preventing an actual problem and safeguarding our political process.

But those aren't the facts before us.

I don't know about Penn... but in St. Louis... holy moley do we ever have voter frauds. And the sad thing is that they should NEVER need to attempt this... St. Louis will NEVER go republican.

But, back to OT (Penn)... it is dodgy as I couldn't find any programs in PENN to assist those who have "trouble" getting an ID.

Jihadin wrote:

Well then i got an idea, if voter ID's are important to republicans why not do this, you had to pay a certain amount of taxes last year to qualify to vote(people not making enough to pay taxes or on elfare are excluded). IF you dont give to the GOVT you should have no say in how its run.

Won't work. Thats like going to Heinlans Federation for government

ITs Satire, I no it wont work. But think about how much of a fume republicans would get? I have a question, how bad is voter fraud? 1 in every 100,000? or 1 in every 1,000,000? Is it really worth denying the right to vote to many people just because you want to stop a problem that may affect very little.

I'm sure this election there be a fire storm about voter fraud on par with "Chad" nightmare

No, there won't be. Want to bet a beer?

I bet a case but yor helping me to drink it. Just remind me before we do not to take certain meds. I even throw in a bottle of Gentleman Jack. You bring the coke. No we are not shooting my M4

You want to bet a case? Do you live in New England so we could share it?

Jihadin wrote:

If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't have sacraficed all those lives or all that money invading Iraq without good reason.

Using the word "waste" downgrades the the individual that paid the ultimate priced.

I used the word "wasted" very deliberately, as it corresponds to the callousness with which I believe those lives were thrown away by politicians who actively pursued and unnecessary war. Unnecessary war is about the biggest evil human beings can commit; right after genocide.

used the word "wasted" very deliberately, as it corresponds to the callousness with which I believe those lives were thrown away by politicians who actively pursued and unnecessary war. Unnecessary war is about the biggest evil human beings can commit; right after genocide.

We agree to disagree on this. We still good for beers?