Stop the dead from voting

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny thing is, they can still vote under these new voter ID laws. Just not in person on election day.

To many, one disenfranchised voter is one too many. Of those, we have potentially a quarter million. Not a tough call.

Yep. Better to have a thousand guilty run free than to imprison one innocent person. That was the lesson learned back during the Salem witch trials. Apparently, we still have witch hunters out there seeking their own brand of justice.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Kind of like the difficulty our forefathers had in setting up the country? Perhaps it's similar to the difficulty of our service members who fought to secure the blessings of liberty?

The fact of the matter is there is no undue burden placed on anyone to provide photo ID at the polls. None. It's not like grandma has to miss work to go track down her marriage license.

Yet another reason not to vote for those clowns.

She's 100 years old. With all due respect, Slim, you should not be trying to compare her to military personnel fighting wars.

She was able to get her ID, and we are not complaining that she did it. Thank God, she can still walk and talk on her own, she's as sharp as ever, and she has a loving family to help her navigate the bureaucracy.

I was simply saying that what she did might be very difficult for other older people without the same resources. You know, it's not such a terrible idea to examine how innocent people might be negatively impacted by new legislation and find ways to help them cope with it, especially when it becomes a burden on some of poorest and weakest citizens - the elderly.

Edited January 24, 2012 by wife_of_mahmoud

[slim 1,530]

She's 100 years old. With all due respect, Slim, you should not be trying to compare her to military personnel fighting wars.

She was able to get her ID, and we are not complaining that she did it. Thank God, she can still walk and talk on her own, she's as sharp as ever, and she has a loving family to help her navigate the bureaucracy.

I was simply saying that what she did might be very difficult for other older people without the same resources. You know, it's not such a terrible idea to examine how innocent people might be negatively impacted by new legislation and find ways to help them cope with it, especially when it becomes a burden on some of poorest and weakest citizens - the elderly.

How is doing something expected of every other citizen a burden?

Oh... I get it. You're one of those "work is a burden" folks. Some people shouldn't have to pay their own way through life either, should they?

[xebec 195]

Yes its a big friggen hassle. If you don't think so I encourage you to volunteer to go pick up elderly people who have health issues and take them out to get them picture ID's. If you feel so strongly about it put your muscle where your mouth is. I love proposals that cause some one else a pain in their #######....There is no mention of the lost productivity to the segment of the population who will be burdened by this crazy proposal....Where does it say you need a photo ID to vote? Did the founders fathers have photo ID's?

Yep. Better to have a thousand guilty run free than to imprison one innocent person. That was the lesson learned back during the Salem witch trials. Apparently, we still have witch hunters out there seeking their own brand of justice.

I was simply saying that what she did might be very difficult for other older people without the same resources. You know, it's not such a terrible idea to examine how innocent people might be negatively impacted by new legislation and find ways to help them cope with it, especially when it becomes a burden on some of poorest and weakest citizens - the elderly.

So..... I can safely assume that these very humanist sentiments apply equally to all constitutional rights? You realize, of course, that precisely the same arguments can be levelled against licensing for concealed handguns, background checks for firearms purchases, etc.....

Edited January 24, 2012 by xebec

[slim 1,530]

So..... I can safely assume that these very humanist sentiments apply equally to all constitutional rights? You realize, of course, that precisely the same arguments can be levelled against licensing for concealed handguns, background checks for firearms purchases, etc.....

Well we don't want to burden anyone.

And as you've already pointed out, the rights between voting/guns are pretty well spelled out in the constitution. Yet their application is so different. Wonder why?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

How is doing something expected of every other citizen a burden?

Oh... I get it. You're one of those "work is a burden" folks. Some people shouldn't have to pay their own way through life either, should they?

Um... what ?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

So..... I can safely assume that these very humanist sentiments apply equally to all constitutional rights? You realize, of course, that precisely the same arguments can be levelled against licensing for concealed handguns, background checks for firearms purchases, etc.....

You and Slim don't seem to be getting what I'm saying at all.

I think it's a really really good idea to verify voters' eligibility to vote.

But when you make a change to the law like this, what's wrong with considering how it will affect innocent people - such as senior citizens who may need assistance getting documentation from 75-80-100 years ago in order to get a photo ID. Sneering at elderly people for needing help is pretty low.

[slim 1,530]

Um... what ?

Personal responsibility applies regardless of age.

You and Slim don't seem to be getting what I'm saying at all.

I think it's a really really good idea to verify voters' eligibility to vote.

But when you make a change to the law like this, what's wrong with considering how it will affect innocent people - such as senior citizens who may need assistance getting documentation from 75-80-100 years ago in order to get a photo ID. Sneering at elderly people for needing help is pretty low.

It's not that we don't get it... it's that we're disagreeing.

And who's sneering? We're saying just because she's old doesn't mean she should be exempted. See, there's this trait that some of us like to apply equally. It's called equality.

Nobody gets a special exception. Nobody.

[xebec 195]

You and Slim don't seem to be getting what I'm saying at all.

I think it's a really really good idea to verify voters' eligibility to vote.

But when you make a change to the law like this, what's wrong with considering how it will affect innocent people - such as senior citizens who may need assistance getting documentation from 75-80-100 years ago in order to get a photo ID. Sneering at elderly people for needing help is pretty low.

I certainly wasn't sneering at anyone....

I agree with you, that our governments- local, state, and federal- sometime impose reactionary and burdensome requirements on citizens, who should be able to exercise their rights unfettered. 2 points, however:

1) I was pointing out that many people squeal about requiring people to produce indentification to vote, saying that this "disenfranchises" poor, elderly, undereducated, or infirm citizens, while supporting similar restriction on other rights, like gun ownership. I was simply noting the obvious hypocricy. (Note, I'm not labeling you....I don't know your stance on regulation of firearms).

2) If something is good policy, I think most would agree that we can't abandon the idea simply because compliance would be more difficult for certain people. Should we, for example, make driving tests easier for the elderly?

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I certainly wasn't sneering at anyone....

I agree with you, that our governments- local, state, and federal- sometime impose reactionary and burdensome requirements on citizens, who should be able to exercise their rights unfettered. 2 points, however:

1) I was pointing out that many people squeal about requiring people to produce indentification to vote, saying that this "disenfranchises" poor, elderly, undereducated, or infirm citizens, while supporting similar restriction on other rights, like gun ownership. I was simply noting the obvious hypocricy. (Note, I'm not labeling you....I don't know your stance on regulation of firearms).

2) If something is good policy, I think most would agree that we can't abandon the idea simply because compliance would be more difficult for certain people. Should we, for example, make driving tests easier for the elderly?

But I never said to abandon the idea.

I said we need to figure out ways to help people comply with the new law, especially when they're suddenly being asked for documents they haven't had to provide anyone for 80 years.

[Used to be broken 147]

It is never too much trouble to do the right thing. Never has been. My father made that point to me a long time ago.

Disturbing you think harrassing Old people or creating any additional burdens on the people who care for them is "doing the right thing."

My dad taught me common sense is "not so common"

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It was probably good for your Grandmother to get out and about, some challenge, and a little adventure.

Things change, and we all have to adapt. For instance, this year, unless they fix the law, I will have to spend the last month of the year filling out 1099's that I never had to fill out before, for all my vendors, so that I will meet the obligations under Obamacare. I am so relieved that we didn't have to do it for 2011, but the questions are there, right on the Schedule C, as a warning for next year.

Edited January 24, 2012 by ☼

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

It was probably good for your Grandmother to get out and about, some challenge, and a little adventure.

Things change, and we all have to adapt. For instance, this year, unless they fix the law, I will have to spend the last month of the year filling out 1099's that I never had to fill out before, for all my vendors, so that I will meet the obligations under Obamacare. I am so relieved that we didn't have to do it for 2011, but the questions are there, right on the Schedule C, as a warning for next year.

I don't think you understood my post either.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That has changed recently -- One for the left, and one for the right:

Okay, so the second of the samples (based on the time the alleged voter fraud occured) demonstrates quite impressively what an EPIC FAIL Indiana's voter ID law is. The SCOTUS upheld it back in 2008, it's in force and yet, the Secretary of State commits what in 2010? You got it: Voter fraud. Precisely what this law supposedly was designed to prevent. Not a case of voter fraud in Indiana ever up until 2008. And then we have two alleged cases since. How can that be if there was a strict voter ID law passed to prevent voter fraud? Did it work? Nope. Will it ever? Nope. Was that really ever the reason to pass it in the first place? Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Okay, so the second of the samples (based on the time the alleged voter fraud occured) demonstrates quite impressively what an EPIC FAIL Indiana's voter ID law is. The SCOTUS upheld it back in 2008, it's in force and yet, the Secretary of State commits what? You got it: Voter fraud. Precisely what this law supposedly was designed to prevent. Did it? Nope. Will it? Nope. Was that really ever the reason to pass it in the first place? Well, if you believe that, I've got a bridge to sell.

COD. Bring it to my front yard.