SayItAintSoJoe Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 I dont care, and photo ID seems like a logical requirement anyways. This In the long run I think it will mean more people with photo IDs. That's a good thing IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 (edited) I went to school with the maroon at the top of the page.... Is it wrong to spell Moran in this unofficial way? Is that like a double negative thing? Edited May 20, 2011 by MikesVikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 fixed, and agreed. the republicans are passing this law because they think it helps them in elections, and democrats are opposing it because they think it hurts them in elections. the simple question remains, is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect people to show a valid photo ID demonstrating they are who they say they are and live where they say they live when they vote? and it seems to me, if it's ok to require you to show a photo ID to buy f'ing sudafed, it's certainly OK to ask you to show ID when you vote. furthermore, I believe you are on record many times saying that photo ID is anything but an unreasonable request, and that it should be required at the polls. yet when a state actually goes to do it, you get all "Have to agree here!" pretty transparent, man. your other shallow partisan line of attack on this issue is to say it is of no consequence. that there is no problem here, voter fraud is neglible and statistically irrelevant. if that is true, then a law like this will have no significant effect on anything. You "fixed" it incorrectly. I say "reduce the Democrat vote", you say "reduce the amount of fraudulent votes" when you have no basis whatsoever to say that fraudulent voting extends beyond single digits in any given election. If that were the sole reason to spend many millions, it would not pass the prioritization test. However, it is not the sole reason - it is there to reduce the Democrat vote regardless of it's legality. Study after study shows the people most affected (and therefore less likely to vote) vote Democrat. If it were Republicans affected, do you think the Republicans would be touting this so heavily? Now, IF the required IDs are issued free the first time and every subsequent time and IF there is a travel / expense subsidy for the people that need to go get one and IF the effort being put into this is equaled by an effort to stop postal voting fraud (how does photo ID fit into that, exactly?), then I'm likely on board. Until then, this is just a crock of right wing BS to disenfranchise people and about as unAmerican as it gets. Your last point is totally disingenuous - because there is no problem now does not mean that, post-law, there will still be no problem. The problem will be of an entirely different nature - however, to you and the rest of the American Hezbollah, it won't be a problem at all, but a victory. Less opposition votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Study after study shows the people most affected (and therefore less likely to vote) vote Democrat. you mean felons and dead people? equating asking for a photo ID with disenfrachisement is a damn weak argument, ursa. The more safeguards there are, the better. I favor a photo ID as being mandatory, and I also favor a return to paper and pencil, junking all punch cards and computers. It's slower, but it's accurate. oh look at that. so you say you favor photo ID being mandatory. the more safeguard there are, the better. until a republican legislature actually proposes it, then it's the american hezbollah trying to steal elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Impressive research Az. I don't remember what I said yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 you say "reduce the amount of fraudulent votes" when you have no basis whatsoever to say that fraudulent voting extends beyond single digits in any given election. maybe you should read this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 People tend to change their minds over the years. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 you mean felons and dead people? equating asking for a photo ID with disenfrachisement is a damn weak argument, ursa. oh look at that. so you say you favor photo ID being mandatory. the more safeguard there are, the better. until a republican legislature actually proposes it, then it's the american hezbollah trying to steal elections. Hilarious!!!!!!! I guess the hypocrisy does not stop at politicians. On a bit of a side note - a Wisco politician (Gwen Moore) wrote a nice letter saying the same things that Ursa is saying - this will disenfranchise the voters Boo hoo - this same woman has a son who was caught puncturing tires on republican vans used to shuttle voters. I guess voter ID will make it too hard to get an id so will disenfranchise the individual and you should be ashamed but hey go ahead and break the law to disenfranchise individuals is A-OK if it is a Republican van. It's all a joke - I would rather pay for giving elderly people photo id's than paying taxes for the fat a$$ woman on child number 4 to buy diapers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 you mean felons and dead people? equating asking for a photo ID with disenfrachisement is a damn weak argument, ursa. oh look at that. so you say you favor photo ID being mandatory. the more safeguard there are, the better. until a republican legislature actually proposes it, then it's the american hezbollah trying to steal elections. You are making disingenuousness a trademark. You AGAIN waffle on about felons and dead people when we both know the target is the poor, anyone who would most likely vote Democrat. You also haven't responded to the point that felon votes will not be stopped at all by photo ID (unless you favor putting criminal records on all photo IDs and swiping the IDs at the polls?) As for my stance from six years ago, if you remember that, you'll also remember that at the time the controversy was over Diebold's zero-security voting machines and yet another naked attempt by the right to rig elections. Seems to me you care a lot more about winning elections by whatever means than ensuring all have their right to vote protected. People tend to change their minds over the years. link Yes they do and for good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deathpig Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 This isn't so much a case of voter fraud, but... ...I don't think anyone gets to claim the high ground in this argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 just wait till summer time in sconny..... should be a lot of fun... the bees nest has been kicked into a frenzy.... You mean the same bees nest that was in a frenzy during last November elections that turned the governorship and the legislature to an 'R'? You mean the same bees nest that was kicked into a frenzy during the budge repair bill that passed anyways? You mean the same bees nest that was kicked into a frenzy and lost the WI Supreme Court election anyways? You mean the same bees nest that was kicked into a frenzy and lost the WI Voter ID argument anyways? Yeah, I'm really scared. At this point, if a Democrat gets his garbage picked up 15 minutes early it will be declared a "huge victory" for the left. I suppose you have to keep hope alive somehow. Problem is, the people of WI have spoken how many times now and you still don't get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 you mean felons and dead people? equating asking for a photo ID with disenfrachisement is a damn weak argument, ursa. oh look at that. so you say you favor photo ID being mandatory. the more safeguard there are, the better. until a republican legislature actually proposes it, then it's the american hezbollah trying to steal elections. Ouch! Check AND Mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 maybe you should read this I have and there are two conclusions to draw: 1. The people running the election commissions are bungling incompetents 2. The threat from absentee votes far exceeds any threat from double voting (which is specifically stated to be zero) or same day registration fraud, less than a handful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Ouch! Check AND Mate! Try and keep up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Try and keep up. Now you're just trying to turn the attention away from the posting beat down you got. Nice try, but you can't escape that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Now you're just trying to turn the attention away from the posting beat down you got. Nice try, but you can't escape that one. Have you read the 67 page article Az posted? I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 oh look at that. so you say you favor photo ID being mandatory. the more safeguard there are, the better. until a republican legislature actually proposes it, then it's the american hezbollah trying to steal elections. Hilarious!!!!!!! I guess the hypocrisy does not stop at politicians. Ouch! Check AND Mate! :High Five!: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 :High Five!: Yeah...all those Super Bowl trophies suck. You're lucky you don't have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 Have you read the 67 page article Az posted? I have. And what's you're point? That you can read? Congratulations - tomorrow we'll teach you how to tie your shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 And what's you're point? That you can read? Congratulations - tomorrow we'll teach you how to tie your shoes. No SHAM WOW!. Admit it Ursa - you got busted on your own words. try to spin anyway you want but I think it has shown quite clearly that you are being a partisan hack - it is not that bad most people are so just admit it. Why would anyone be against voter id? I don't quite get it - I don't know one person who does not own a picture ID so who are we really disenfranchising?? What would getting a voter ID cost someone? Maybe $25 every couple of years? if you want to be included in electing our govt officials then don't buy that case of beer or carton of smokes or cases of Mountain Dew or Iphone or whatever and get a photo ID. I know elderly people that call relatives to take them to go vote these people would never miss the chance to vote and they would have no problems getting an ID. What is the big deal? If it really hurts the dems because of the poor not having photo id I am sure he unions will pay for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 No SHAM WOW!. Admit it Ursa - you got busted on your own words. try to spin anyway you want but I think it has shown quite clearly that you are being a partisan hack - it is not that bad most people are so just admit it. Am I against photo ID? This is from my earlier post in this thread: Now, IF the required IDs are issued free the first time and every subsequent time and IF there is a travel / expense subsidy for the people that need to go get one and IF the effort being put into this is equaled by an effort to stop postal voting fraud (how does photo ID fit into that, exactly?), then I'm likely on board. What makes you think that wasn't my attitude six years ago too when I posted in favor of photo ID? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 21, 2011 Author Share Posted May 21, 2011 man this never gets old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 (edited) Am I against photo ID? This is from my earlier post in this thread: What makes you think that wasn't my attitude six years ago too when I posted in favor of photo ID? You've added so many qualifiers to the photo ID issue that you've effectively shown that you are against it: Now, IF the required IDs are issued free the first time and every subsequent time and IF there is a travel / expense subsidy for the people that need to go get one and IF the effort being put into this is equaled by an effort to stop postal voting fraud (how does photo ID fit into that, exactly?), then I'm likely on board. And even then you're likely - but not fully - on board. Any other qualifiers you want to add to the ID issue? Maybe give the union members a 60% pay raise and retirement at age 30 with full benefits? Free health care? Edited May 21, 2011 by tosberg34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 man this never gets old I'd try to discuss the attempts to keep corporate political donations secret but any attempt at rational discussion gets interrupted by TTT so it's pretty pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 21, 2011 Share Posted May 21, 2011 I'd try to discuss the attempts to keep corporate political donations secret but any attempt at rational discussion gets interrupted by TTT so it's pretty pointless. Does it really matter anyway? The voters elected Walker and enough Republicans this past election to take control. The the budget repair bill came out and the libs ran out of state - illegally I might add. I guess that is not disenfranchising anyone huh?? People voted for Prosser and he BEAT Kloppenburg - people voted and spoke their minds - what now? The libs are stalling and delaying as much as possible. Is this disenfranchising anyone? Hmm guess not. It is pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts