Voting fraud & ID's revisited

You have just proven my point. Zero evidence. Just your opinion. Then you had to add insults just because .... Now you can go back to talking to yourself.

 

UNTRUE

Once again, I have posted evidence that supports my opinions.

The rest wasn't meant to be insulting. You are a right-winger, you do support right-wing politics, and you don't question their methods.

How do I conclude that to be true? Easy. Have you ever gone against the party-line even once out of a thousand times here? I can't recall any, but even if you had once or twice that doesn't excuse the other 99.9% of the time now does it?

So it's hardly an insult to say any of that. Now, I am capable of insulting you, true, but am I doing so here? Nope.

 

There is actually nothing in the Constitution that gives anyone a "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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

Now, no citizen in the country can be denied the right to vote; he just isn't ensured the right by the Constitution. I don't think any polling place in the country would deny them the right to vote when they present an ID.

 

So which part of this is not an insult?

I guess that I should consider the source as an admitted liar so just ignore it. That sounds most appropriate to me.

 

I had to "like" this... just for the true but rabid absurdity of it... right up my alley lol

 

Poetic license. ...but nice "You called me that so I'll call you that back!"...I don't own the car, but it is sitting in our yard. The value of $300 is based on it's scrap value. It's the 1992 Ford Aerostar I mentioned elsewhere. It ran... about three years ago... but I haven't even tried starting it since then. That's the car I used to use, repairing it as best I could... once with a wire-hanger I had in the back. I always keep wire hangers in my cars... it's something poor people learn to do.

Now, I'm sorry if what I said upset you, but are you denying any of it specifically? Not a republican? You may not consider yourself that, but any neutral observer would say that part of my statement is accurate. Don't support the republican party? Again, a reasonable person would say that was true. Incapable in seeing the issue with photo ID laws as a result? Subjective yes, but well within reason. It is widely recognized that the most difficult thing to do is be objective about one's own beliefs. I've already established that you are a republican, or lean that way, and support the party... it's an easy enough conclusion to make, especially since you actually have been for photo IDs. Do you disagree that you willfully support the party line then despite the evidence that says the republicans are wrong? Subjective yes, but again, the evidence has been given... and you ignored it or question it's legitimacy. How can I say that is true? Again, you have to look at the other points to see how that is possible.

Once again, I don't mean any of that to be insulting, but that's the limit to my apology. I believe it's fair to say so, but if it upsets you that much I will do my best to refrain from mentioning it in the future.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/18/fox-news-poll-most-think-voter-id-laws-are-necessary/

 

In case it was missed, the BO admin just announced that all entitlement payments would be made via direct deposit, to either bank accts or debit cards, beginning in 2013. What are poor, dumb dems gonna do now? They'll have to have ID's to spend their money now, won't they?