Well, there you have it. If YOU don't know anyone without one...and if YOU're "betting that most who don't have it also don't normally vote", well I guess that about wraps it up...
LadyJazzer wrote: Well, then you're either very sheltered, or you're a bigoted ass. I'll leave the choice open.
Hmmm.... What to choose...
LJ's gonna let me choose!
What to......
Well I don't think I'm that sheltered.
I'll pick BIGOTED ASS!!
Except for the people you know who are here illegally LJ....
Come on now LJ- how many people do you know who really really don't have a photo ID- and it would be so much of a burden to go down and get one? How many?
LadyJazzer wrote: Well, there you have it. If YOU don't know anyone without one...and if YOU're "betting that most who don't have it also don't normally vote", well I guess that about wraps it up...
rofllol
Do you know anyone without photo ID? And are they voters?
That is why I would like to see a national poll, just like most Americans want to see illegal aliens shipped out, a majority of voters want to see photo ID required.
Once again the hard left is a small minority.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I already posted one on Page-6 of this thread. I frankly don't give a rat's patoot if that example isn't sufficient. You asked for one, and I posted it. If want others, they are out there, and easy to find.
And it's not a small minority... It's a growing movement by the DoJ to stop voter-suppression.
But gee, we've got YOUR opinion and YOUR anecdotal recitation that you don't know anyone, so I guess all that matters is your own narrow world-view...
I love these upside down issues. Traditionally Dems are for more goverment, banning salt n your food, carbon dioxide in your air, prohibiting what you can build on your land. But ask someone for a picture ID to vote, and they all freak out.
Wheras conservatives are supposed to be for less intrusion, less paperwork, more freedom, but here they want everyone to have photo ID with fingerprints to vote.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Wheras conservatives are supposed to be for less intrusion, less paperwork, more freedom,
Like forced ultrasounds? Crawling up inside women's wombs? Forcing them to listen to a script read by a doctor but written by the GOP legislature that contains confirmed lies? Like trying to cut off women's healthcare and access to cancer screenings?.... You mean like THAT "less intrusion" Like THAT "more freedom"?
No, the Nazi Party, formerly known as Republicans, have gone waaaay beyond "less intrusion" and "more freedom"....
LadyJazzer wrote: The problem is not the people who HAVE photo-ID. Duh... The problem is the people who ARE U.S. CITIZENS who, because of age, or problems with obtaining acceptable documents, DO have a problem.
The problem is that photo-ID's that USED to be acceptable, (Student ID's, etc.), the voter-suppression laws are specifically designed to suppress them. Enough anecdotal evidence of this denial has been presented, and is available on the Internet, if one actually cares to find it.
On the other hand, one of the reasons that the DoJ is denying the voter-suppression laws that Rick Perry is trying to shove through is that he apparently cannot come up with any actual documented cases of voter fraud having occurred.
You've got your photo-ID...I've got my photo-ID... B.F.D. That's not the issue...is it.
The problem with a student ID is that it doesn't identify one as a citizen of that State - a state issued ID does that. If you have moved to Colorado from Iowa but never went in to get your drivers license changed the identification that you have identifies you as a citizen of another state, not the one you are attempting to vote in - that ain't no one's fault but your own. If you are not willing to follow the laws of the state and get yourself and your vehicles registered in the state you are now a citizen of, you shouldn't be allowed to vote, you are failing to follow the law. If you are a student in one state and a citizen of another, then you should obtain a ballot from the state you are a citizen in instead of trying to vote in the state that you are a resident of.
Only citizens are allowed to vote and the Supreme Court of this union has said in no uncertain terms that being required to present an ID identifying yourself as such is not an undue burden imposed upon you. The same standard that applies to Indiana applies to Texas - isn't that what equal protection under the law establishes? Shouldn't the citizens of Texas be able to have the same protections for the integrity of the vote in their state that the citizens of Indiana have?
In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny.
FredHayek wrote: Wheras conservatives are supposed to be for less intrusion, less paperwork, more freedom,
Like forced ultrasounds? Crawling up inside women's wombs? Forcing them to listen to a script read by a doctor but written by the GOP legislature that contains confirmed lies? Like trying to cut off women's healthcare and access to cancer screenings?.... You mean like THAT "less intrusion" Like THAT "more freedom"?
No, the Nazi Party, formerly known as Republicans, have gone waaaay beyond "less intrusion" and "more freedom"....
