I wasn't saying that there's a proof of the null string.

I was saying that the null string itself satisfies the conditions to be a valid proof.

Thank you. I understand now.

Though it still brings back nightmares :)

Using the natural-language term "nothing" allows us to avoid the commitment to a semantics.

Ah ... natural language. If only we could get rid of it and replace it with a logical system which we could use to prove everything.

Bertrand Russell is still one of my personal heroes though. One of the classiest acts of the 20th century.

-David

Wanna talk about Tim Tebow?? :D

Michale
170

Michale
169

The last of zero lines is certainly nothing, if you're willing to accept a word "nothing" at all.

"Oh no, I've gone cross-eyed"
-Mike Meyers, AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME

:D

Michale....
168

If people have been trying to rob a bank for over two hundred years, and not once in all that time have any of them ever used the unlocked front door that lets customers access the night deposit slot, I'm not going to go insisting that they buy a lock for the front door. Whether I'm willing to put my money in such a bank will depend on whether they have sound assets, adequate deposit insurance, a strong vault, and so on.

Not once has an election been stolen by votER fraud, even as several have been stolen by other means.

No, there isn't a null character. There's a character that represents the null string, Ø. But "Ø" isn't the null string. It's the string consisting of the character representing the null string. You can't have a null string of length 1: the null string is the string of length zero.

Modus ponens says that given any expressions P and Q, if (P implies Q) and P are previous lines of a valid argument, then appending Q as a new line yields a valid argument.

I wasn't saying that there's a proof of the null string: that depends on whether the null string is construed as an expression. I was saying that the null string itself satisfies the conditions to be a valid proof. A proof is a sequence of lines, such that every line is either etc. The null string is the sequence of zero lines, so any statement of the form 'every line of the null string is P' is true.

The questionable premise is that the last line of the null string is the null statement, i.e. "nothing". Depending on one's semantics, the null statement could be the null string, or the logical constant TRUE, or the logical constant FALSE. Using the natural-language term "nothing" allows us to avoid the commitment to a semantics: if you posit that "proof of nothing" is a well-formed phrase, you're already in at least as deep trouble as you get by stipulating that the null statement is the same as the logical constant TRUE.

The last of zero lines is certainly nothing, if you're willing to accept a word "nothing" at all.

Well said.

For my part, I was very impressed with your argument. I mean that.

You could have gone the easy way and used the old tried and (un)true argument of....

"Oh my god!! Think of the children!!!"

..... The emotional laden argument that defies logic.

But you went a different tact and made a reasonable and logical argument regarding a cost factor analysis..

I disagree, but don't think for a moment that I don't respect your argument..

It really had me knocked for a loop, because I was all set and prepared to demolish the emotional argument and here you go hitting me with logic..

Bastard! :D

Kudos on a well laid argument. :D

Note To CW:

Seems the Preview Comment is back to no LFs..

Michale.....
164

Actually, the null string is a proof of nothing. Every line of the null string is either one of the postulates, a previously-proved theorem, or the result of applying modus ponens to previous lines. The last line of the null string is the null string. Hence the null string is a proof of the null string, i.e. of nothing. QED.

Your proof of the null string assumes the existence of a null character (otherwise, you can't use modus ponens) which I'm assuming you meant as one of the postulates. I still haven't been able to find one way or another a proof of a null character. Though a null character is simply a null string of length 1, somehow, in my mind, I feel like the null character has to exist as a postulate.

No? Forgive me as it's been a long time since Discrete Math/Abstract Algebra. Your comment lead to some bad dreams of being stuck in one of these classes trying to answer a similar question on a test as time was running out :)

-David

Businesses don't typically make investments unless there's evidence that they will see a ROI or significant business value from the investment.

I still don't see any evidence that it will provide any benefit or returns.

If I'm hearing you right, your argument sounds like "It can't hurt and it might help."

If we were running a business together and I were making an argument like that, I would want you to hold me to a higher standard before making the investment. I'd want you to say ... show me some examples where it provided additional value or reduced my costs.

The trouble with our country right now is that decisions aren't often made this way.

It's seen as weakness (rather than strength) for both sides to work together. Let me explain how I see what we're doing as working together. And how I think it's a strength.

I thought of the idea because I was asking myself, what might convince Michale? And ... how could we work together instead of getting into the same old boring unproductive Left/Right argument?

This lead me to the idea of trying to lay out the cost/benefit and then see what holes you might poke in it.

We had a guy at work who used to test software that we developed and he'd poke and prod and find the bugs in it and he was absolutely invaluable. You do the same type of thing.

And, you're going to think of things and bring up things that I don't.

You may still not agree with the analysis and that's ok. But thanks for discussing and trying to stay out of the Right/Left name calling. I learned a lot. And please, feel free to call me on it if I do it. I ain't sayin' I'm innocent.

I wish I could have seen something like our discussion around the healthcare debate in our media (though healthcare is admittedly more complex) because I still feel like I don't understand the costs/benefits.

That's why I can understand why people are questioning it.

Wrapping up because there's probably other horses for us to search for and beat :)

-David

p.s. I think your bank analogy is good, but here's what I would change. You say that the bank is unprotected. In the case of voting, this is not the case: there is a system in place. To revise the analogy, it's more like moving the bank to a new security system. I would argue that, for the cost, there needs to be a compelling reason to move to a new security system. Some flaw in the old system. Currently, it looks to me like the old system works and works well so I would rather make investments in other areas where there are better returns.

Of course I do...

As I have shown, IDs are not expensive.

If someone can make it to a voting booth, they can go get an ID..

Put together a PLAUSIBLE scenario where someone would be disenfranchised by the picture ID requirement and then get back to me..

In your analogy, the key point is that the "doors" have already been "unlocked" for over two hundred years, and precisely no elections have been stolen that way.

Even given that, do you want to put YOUR money in a bank that would do that??

Of course not..

You've made clear that you're not going to acknowledge even the most obvious points about disenfranchisement, whereas you're still presenting a semblance of dialogue about cost.

No one has MADE any logical point regarding disenfranchisement..

But it also provides no reason to make our democracy a bit farther from perfect.

If enforcing the laws makes a democracy "far from perfect" then maybe democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be...

Michale.....
164

I'm pretty sure you don't even believe this yourself.

Statistically, the St Augustine Bank has never been broken into.. Does that mean it's a probably not a problem to leave the doors unlocked?

In your analogy, the key point is that the "doors" have already been "unlocked" for over two hundred years, and precisely no elections have been stolen that way.

These costs vary. But to say there are no costs is dishonest.

Ftfy.

And don't think I didn't notice how ya'all have moved away from the DISENFRANCHISEMENT reasoning

Well, it doesn't even look like a horse any more. You've made clear that you're not going to acknowledge even the most obvious points about disenfranchisement, whereas you're still presenting a semblance of dialogue about cost.

Democracy as we know it hasn't ended.

Democracy "as we know it" is very far from perfect, as illustrated by the graveyard vote for Kennedy and the Supreme Court vote for Bush. (And Rutherfraud B. Hayes, and the Corrupt Bargain, but those were imperfect in a rather different way.) That doesn't mean the world has ended. But it also provides no reason to make our democracy a bit farther from perfect.

Exactly..

Now, once I see REAL evidence that the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters I might change my mind...

Once I see REAL evidence that a picture ID would actually hinder an election rather than helping it, I will change my mind..

But until such time as that evidence is aired and vetted and not found wanting, here we are..

With studies showing that seven to 11 percent of citizens don’t have a photo ID, demands on DMV offices for ID cards will go up —

And so will revenues...

A GOOD thing..

State of Missouri estimates the cost at $16.9 million dollars for HB 1966. MO 2010 Fiscal Note.

HB 1966 is a bill that allows voters to cast advance ballots.

Doesn't say anything about ID cards..

and so will
expenses if North Carolina issues free cards to avoid costly lawsuits which argue the costs of an ID card amount to a poll tax. In 2009, Wisconsin projected a total $2.4 million cost for ID cards; Missouri estimated $3.4 million.

That's a pretty big "IF"...

Using the reasoning that obtaining an ID is a "poll tax" would lead us the the "reasoning" that purchasing gasoline to get to the polling station is a "poll tax"...

Hell, buying a car would be a "poll tax" because some might have to have transportation to get to the polling station, right??

Pretty ridiculous, isn't it? :D

Just as ridiculous as claiming that obtaining an ID card is tantamount to a "poll tax"...

Further, I would like to read the particulars of that study, to see if there are any indications that it was skewed due to partisan ideology..

This seems to depend.

On what?? Whether a person thinks that a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes is more important to them than voting??

A person that would have to mull that no-brainer decision is not one likely to vote anyways..

A person simply cannot be disenfranchised to vote without their tacit approval...

Nonetheless, all the evidence indicates that the current system works and there has been no evidence presented that a new system would work any better.

By definition, the system would work better.

Why are Democrats so afraid to enforce the law??

If the states that were doing this were businesses, they would be out of business quickly because it's clear they're not making good decisions.

And yet, 16 states are already doing it and no problems have developed because of it.

Kinda kills that theory, eh??

Again, I'll ask..

Why are Democrats so afraid of this??

It can't be disenfranchising voters because that has already been shown to be false..

It can't be the expense, because Democrats LOVE to spend and LOVE to give entitlements...

So, WHY be so afraid of this??

Only one answer makes any kind of sense..

Democrats are afraid that it will prevent those who vote illegally from voting.

That's the only logical conclusion.

Michale
163

It was once common sense that the world was flat. Then, along came evidence.

1. Switching all states to a picture ID will not cost the states any more.

State of Missouri estimates the cost at $16.9 million dollars for HB 1966. MO 2010 Fiscal Note.

http://www.progressivestates.org/sync/pdfs/MO%202010%20fiscal%20note.pdf

North Carolina estimates $18-25 million.
Minnesota, I already mentioned at $25 million.

Seems pretty consistent.

2. State revenue will actually increase.

From the North Carolina study:
With studies showing that seven to 11 percent of citizens don’t have a photo ID, demands on DMV offices for ID cards will go up — and so will
expenses if North Carolina issues free cards to avoid costly lawsuits which argue the costs of an ID card amount to a poll tax. In 2009, Wisconsin projected a total $2.4 million cost for ID cards; Missouri estimated $3.4 million.

Hmmm. Seems this claim that revenue will go up is questionable as well.

3. It is not expensive nor difficult to obtain a state ID card.

This seems to depend.

Nonetheless, all the evidence indicates that the current system works and there has been no evidence presented that a new system would work any better.

All cost, no benefit.

If the states that were doing this were businesses, they would be out of business quickly because it's clear they're not making good decisions.

-David

1. Switching all states to a picture ID will not cost the states any more. It will make the ID process more uniformed and more streamlined as only one piece of ID will be required..

2. State revenue will actually increase...

3. It is not expensive nor difficult to obtain a state ID card...

Given these facts, there is no logical or rational reason to oppose picture ID for voting..

The reasons WHY the GOP supports it and the Democrats are against it are irrelevant..

BUT....

But if you want to claim that the GOP is supporting it for disenfranchisement reasons, then I can claim that Democrats are against it so they can cheat...

Each claim is possible, albeit unlikely and completely without any foundation to support the claim..

Michale
162

So, millions of illegal immigrants in this country and NONE of them are voting..

Is that your claim??

That's why I quantified the factors. What evidence are you basing your analysis on?

Common sense..

Democrats are for lax penalties, lesser laws and decriminalizing a lot of criminal behavior...

Ergo, it's logical to assume that criminals would be more inclined to vote Democrat..

If you want to make the assumption that Republicans are doing what they are doing to disenfranchise voters, aren't I allowed to make the assumption that Democrats are against it to make illegal voting easier??

Michale.....

No. We've said it again and again.

There's no evidence that illegal immigrants are even voting illegally. In fact, there's scant evidence that anyone is voting illegally.

Without evidence, all you have is suspicion. Just like your argument against racism.

For cost benefit analysis to be useful, you have to quantify the factors.

That's why I quantified the factors. What evidence are you basing your analysis on?

-David

C'mon, Michale. I thought we'd gotten past the name calling.

There's no evidence to support this statement and you know it.

It's not name-calling.. It's an opinion supported by reams and reams of facts..

Are you saying that illegal immigrants overwhelmingly vote Republican??

Yet every chance you get you're making broad sweeping generalizations without any evidence. "Lazy", "criminal", "felons". These are just a few from this thread.

If someone doesn't have time to get an ID, what do YOU call it??

If someone can't miss the latest episode of Oprah, what would YOU call it???

Cost benefit analysis is not Republican or Democrat. It's used by every business I know in one sense or another.

For cost benefit analysis to be useful, you have to quantify the factors..

You can't quantify the factors in this case, so any analysis is based on gross assumptions that have little or nothing to do with reality...

Michale....
160

C'mon, Michale. I thought we'd gotten past the name calling.

There's no evidence to support this statement and you know it.

You don't like when conservatives are called racists and you say everyone should stop.

Yet every chance you get you're making broad sweeping generalizations without any evidence. "Lazy", "criminal", "felons". These are just a few from this thread.

Can we please stop the unsubstantiated name calling?

Cost benefit analysis is not Republican or Democrat. It's used by every business I know in one sense or another.

-David

The same can be said that Democrats have a vested interest in making cheating as easy as possible..

If one takes a partisan stance, it works both ways..

Michale
159

Assumes facts not in evidence...

The NAACP??? Now THERE is the epitome of racial equality, eh?? :D

Is there any evidence from anyone who doesn't have a dog in the hunt???

you're wrong about this one michale. there's extensive evidence that restricting people's ability to get an ID and to get registered, does cause a great many people who are neither criminal nor illegal to lose their legitimate vote.

No one can be disenfranchised to vote without their tacit approval..

If it's too much of a hassle to get an ID (it really isn't) then it's too much of a hassle to vote..

Those who think that voting is worthwhile will take the time to do what is required..

Those who don't, won't...

Sorry, but nothing presented has convinced me that getting an ID is, overall, the harrowing life-threatening endeavor ya'all make it out to be...

Michale.....
157

NO, they have a vested interest in ensuring that voting is as hard as possible, PERIOD. the NAACP has made a list of the ways they've tried to make voting harder, if you follow my link. the lower the turn-out, the better they do, end of story. illegal voting is just a convenient excuse.

The ONLY group that would have a serious problem about obtaining IDs is the criminal element.

now that is just a load of moose poop. even i, somebody extremely educated and gainfully employed, had some trouble coming up with all the documentation the state now requires to renew my license. i found it shocking how complicated the requirements were, and my friend mike (an ex-marine who lives part of the year with his wife in Colombia) wasn't even able to get one. he's anything but illegal, he's just one of thousands of people who fall through the cracks.

you're wrong about this one michale. there's extensive evidence that restricting people's ability to get an ID and to get registered, does cause a great many people who are neither criminal nor illegal to lose their legitimate vote. there's no evidence of anything more than an occasional outlier among illegal aliens. the ratio of legitimate voters denied to illegal voters allowed is something like 10,000 to 1 and that is being conservative, so to speak.

But let's face facts.

If a person is going to vote illegally, they will very likely be voting Democrat...

So, the Democratic Party has a vested interest in insuring that voting illegally is as easy as possible...

Of course, the converse of that is also true.

The GOP also has a vested interested in insuring that voting illegally is as HARD as possible.

If illegal voters were likely to vote GOP, then the actions of the DP and the GOP would be the diametric opposite..

So as with many things, one must look past the politics and review the facts with a coldly logical and objective eye without ANY consideration for emotionally laden concepts..

And such a review could only render one logical conclusion.

That requiring a Photo ID for voting is a logical and rational requirement to insure a fair and legal election...

Michale.....
156

The world hasn't ended.

Democracy as we know it hasn't ended..

People still get elected and yes... Some of them are even Democrats!!!

All the kerfluffle from the Democratic Party over Photo ID requirements is much ado about nothing...

It's politics, pure and simple..

Michale
152

Alabama – $23
Alaska – Under 60 is $15, over 60 is free
Arizona – $12. Over 65 is free
Arkansas – $10
California – $23. Free for those over 62. $7 for low income folks
Colorado – $10.50. Free for those over 60
Connecticut – $15
Delaware -$5
Florida – $3 whole friggin’ dollars!!!!!!
Georgia -$20 for 5 years, $35 for $10 years
Hawaii – $15 for under 65, $10 for over 65
Idaho – $7.50. Renewals can even be done by mail
Illinois – $20, free for seniors over 65 with no renewal necessary
Indiana – $13 under 65, $10 for over 65, last for 6 years
Iowa – $5
Kansas – $18 under 65, $14 over 65
Kentucky – $12
Louisiana – Average $21, free for over 60
Maine – $5
Maryland – $15, free for those over 65
Massachusetts – $15
Michigan – $10, free for seniors.
Minnesota – $15.50, $10.75 for those 65 and up
Mississippi – $13
Missouri – $11
Montana – $8
Nebraska – $23.75 (lots of different fees for those under 21)
Nevada – $11.25. For 65 and up, new is $6.25, renewal is $2.25
New Hampshire – UNK
New Jersey – $24
New Mexico – $5 for 5 years, $8 for 10 years
New York – Depending on length, $9 to $14. 62 and up, $6.50
North Carolina – $10
North Dakota – $8
Ohio – $8.50
Oklahoma – $10
Oregon – $29 for 8 years
Pennsylvania – $10, and they make it really, really easy
Rhode Island – $15, free for 59 and up
South Carolina – $5
South Dakota – $8
Tennessee – $12.50. For those 65 and up, they never expire
Texas – $15. 60 and up, $5 and never has to be renewed
Utah – $18. Never expires for those 65 and up
Vermont – $15, $10 if you get Social Security Income
Virginia – $10
Washington – $20
West Virginia – UNK
Wisconsin – $28 for eight years
Wyoming – $10, never expires
Washington, D.C. – $20

So, poor voters will be disenfranchised if they have to pay for an ID to vote??

Puuuuuhhhhlllleeeeeeeessssssssssseeee

Michale
151

Sorry, this argument simply will not fly..

In all cases, fees for IDs are less than the cost of a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes.. Here in FL you can get a State ID for 3 bucks!!! South Carolina, you can get one for $5!!! Many states, seniors are FREE!!!!

with all the lists the IRS has of voter numbers and SSN's, a little inter-agency cooperation would be inexpensive,

Trying to get agencies to co-operate would be horrendously expensive and would like be worse than having no ID at all...

The simplest, easiest and most effective way to ID people at voting is to change the ID requirement to a picture ID...

It's actually those who would vote Republican who have a harder time getting ID than those who vote Democrat..

This being the case, the ONLY reason that makes sense is that the Democratic Party wants to keep the option of cheating in an election open to them.

Nothing else rationally and logically explains the Party's opposition to Picture IDs..

It can't be the cost to the poor, because the cost is negligible to free. It certainly wouldn't prohibit anyone from voting who really wanted to vote.

It can't be the cost to elections, as it would actually SAVE money by standardizing ID requirements.

The ONLY group that would have a serious problem about obtaining IDs is the criminal element.

Given these facts, there is only one possible rational reason to be against picture IDs to vote.

Michale.....
150*

if that's the case, it's because there's a fee, and where the fee can be waived voters aren't informed of it, as in wisconsin. therefore, people who don't already have picture ID's (generally the poor) would have to buy them to vote, which they might have trouble affording, and those who lack the education to figure out the procedure for getting a free card (generally the poor) would be unable to get one.

so in addition to being predominantly a tax on the poor, it is a de-facto poll tax, in violation of the 24th amendment.

But in this case, the "phenomenon" WAS observed.

observed, measured and replicated? by whom, specifically? the only aliens for whom i've found evidence of voting are the legal ones who did follow the laws for immigration and didn't realize voting was a crime. why would someone who jumped through all the hoops to enter the country legally knowingly decide to vote illegally? and if illegals voted, why have like five in the whole country been caught and deported?

with all the lists the IRS has of voter numbers and SSN's, a little inter-agency cooperation would be inexpensive, infinitely more effective and not a tax on the poor.

http://naacp.3cdn.net/67065c25be9ae43367_mlbrsy48b.pdf

Kudos...

Run-O-The-Mill Democrats would do well to follow ya'alls example, as the DISENFRANCHISEMENT argument is an emotional argument that is easily shot down...

Michale....
149

There IS no "change in the process"...

There is simply asking for a new ID...

How can that "change" the process??

IDs are required. There is a verification process in place.

You've shown no evidence that it doesn't.

You have stated evidence that it hadn't...

Why do waste government money on changing a process that works?

There is no waste of government money as the change is miniscule...

There is a net GAIN in revenue from the IDs that are purchased..

You have yet to state one logical or rational reason for NOT reverting to Picture ID..

Asking for a different kind of ID requires no additional funding.

It's been established that anyone who won't vote because they don't want to get a picture ID is either of the criminal class or disinclined to vote anyways..

Ergo, there is absolutely NO logical reason NOT to change the ID requirement..

Other than it will make it harder for people to cheat in elections..

How could ANYONE be against that???

Michale.....
148

IDs are required. There is a verification process in place.

And it works.

You've shown no evidence that it doesn't.

Why do waste government money on changing a process that works?

-David

Did you ever change a business process?

I'm doing this right now for our company.

When changing a process, some of the things you need are:

1. Training for workers on the new process
2. Documentation for the new process
3. A communication process and implementation plan for the new process; how you are going to make it happen
4. Educating the public about the changes (Oh right, you don't care about this one because you want to make it difficult for people to vote. But I'm including it anyways.)
5. Updates to forms and systems

These costs vary. But to say there are no costs is inaccurate.

This is why I looked at a report on what it cost for the State of Minnesota where the estimate was $100 million. Now this might be high, but it should give you an idea of the ballpark.

-David

But in this case, the "phenomenon" WAS observed.

If there are millions and millions of illegal immigrants, is it impossible that NONE of them voted??

I believe so..

Regardless, nothing rational or logical has been put forth that requiring picture IDs will disenfranchise any voters that would be inclined to not vote anyways...

Until such evidence is presented and vetted, I am going to err on the side that enforcing the law is a good idea...

Michale....
147

that's a defining characteristic of the scientific method - if a phenomenon cannot be observed, measured and/or replicated, the null set is most likely the correct assumption. you can have your suspicions, but until you prove them, the only rational assumption is that they're untrue.

unlike alleged voter fraud (which fox did harp on pretty thoroughly in spite of finding no evidence), the documentary "hacking democracy" showed on-camera the paper evidence that disenfranchisement actually did happen in volusia county, as well as successfully replicating a voting machine hack that fit the data, and was directly observed (also on camera) by a county official. the evidence of computerized disenfranchisement is not necessarily partisan, by the way - diebold has yielded some suspiciously democratic results in democratic-controlled states as well.

there's no final word on the matter, but the evidence thus far points distinctly in one direction - fraud in the counting of votes, not in the casting of votes. thus far, a great many people have come forward saying they were improperly denied access to the polls, while precious few have come forward suggesting that someone voted who shouldn't have. hard proof? no. but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, odds are that it's a duck.

That we know of...

Statistically, the St Augustine Bank has never been broken into..

Does that mean it's a probably not a problem to leave the doors unlocked???

Why NOT require picture ID??

I can't think of ONE single legitimate reason to NOT require a picture ID...

There will be no cost associated with requiring Picture ID..

If anything, state income will go up slightly, due to the requirements..

Michale.....
146

I can tell you what the cost of not changing is. Zero.

And it looks like there's little benefit to changing the law. Statistically, voter "fraud" just isn't a problem.

If it were, you'd have every statistic in the world at your fingertips because Fox News would be looping them endlessly.

Even when it's not, they're doing everything they can to try and make it look like a problem.

-David

CW Looks like ya might have another $50 heading yer way tonight. hehehehehehehe

Michale.....
145

And your only "evidence" of that is absence of evidence.

You would agree that this country has an illegal immigrant problem, right??

Isn't it within the realm of possibility that, out of the millions and millions of illegals here in the US, SOME of them are voting, due to the lax ID laws???

That possibility alone justifies a picture ID requirement..

The benefit to implementing is ridiculously low versus the high cost of having to change the system.

Nothing is being "changed"... ID is required when voting already.. The only change is the type of ID would be standardized to a State Issued picture ID..

If anything, it will make things faster and cheaper...

No. But if it's not going to make it significantly better for the cost, it's not a project worth doing.

You don't know that it won't make things significantly better because you can't quantify how bad things are right now..

Put another way.. Say that we have a nationwide picture ID requirement for the 2012 elections....

In the 2012 election, there is a significant drop in Dem voter turnout, much larger than the "enthusiasm factor" (or lack thereof) would account for..

Wouldn't a logical assumption be that the ID requirement prevented voter fraud??

You point to lack of voter fraud cases in the here and now and say that is "proof" that there is no problem ..

How would you know, if there isn't any mechanism in place to determine voter fraud??

At least we have moved away from the "disenfranchisement" issue..

A shame.. I have a "buttload" (it's an industry term.. :D) of new evidence that disproves the disenfranchisement theory... :D

Michale.....
144

Good point. I should have said it works well when it comes to making sure those who vote are legitimate voters.

Can you give me one logical and rational reason to oppose ID requirements?

The benefit to implementing is ridiculously low versus the high cost of having to change the system.

In the IT world, it would be like changing every computer in the company because you wanted the color of the computer to be white.

You're not getting any additional value. And it's going to cost a lot.

The value is reducing cases of voter fraud from .000055 to .000027. While costs, even in an extreme low-ball estimate, would be in the millions.

Again, the numbers may be slightly off, but I believe they provide enough information for a comparison.

Will requiring Picture ID make the system worse?

No. But if it's not going to make it significantly better for the cost, it's not a project worth doing.

It is ... and would be ... government waste.

-David

It has the benefit of insuring the law is followed...

Other than the completely subjective and totally unproven reason of disenfranchising Democrat voters, can you give me one logical and rational reason to oppose ID requirements??

Michale.....
143

I believe the answer is none . They were all related to different problems.

My only point is your claim that the system works well..

It doesn't...

Will requiring Picture ID help???

Mebbe??

Will requiring Picture ID make the system worse??

Definitely not..

Therefore, there is no logical or rational reason to oppose the requirement of picture ID..

There are only partisan and unproven emotional reasons...

Michale.....
142

And how many lawsuits have had to do with issues which additional Voter ID laws could solve?

I believe the answer is none . They were all related to different problems.

Looking at the cost benefit analysis, there's no way these laws make sense except to conservatives who are trying to win elections.

It's entirely cost with virtually no benefit.

-David

:D

I hope you understood the tongue/cheek manner in which that was posted... :D

Michale.....

Wrong..

These voters would be required to obtain a DL **OR** a state ID..

State ID costs less than a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes...

I stand corrected... In South Carolina, a State ID costs LESS than a pack of cigarettes or a 6pack of beer!!

***LESS***

"OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!!"
-Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

Now, let's look at some reasons why people won't get IDs...

....

.......

..........

.............

I can only think of three..

1. They are too lazy.....

2. They don't really care about voting..

3. They are criminals...

I have come around to ya'alls way of thinking...

Voting *IS* a right...

But it's a right that comes with responsibilities...

If one is too lazy, to indifferent or too askeered to accept the responsibilities that come with voting, then they don't DESERVE the right to vote...

Wouldn't you agree???

Michale.....
140

Do you honestly consider those who have a Picture ID as the "privileged"??

Com'on... That's not even a stretch... It's totally whacked... :D

The current system works well,

How many elections have resulted in lawsuits since 2000??

I don't understand how you can make the claim that the system works well...

Did the "system" work "well" in Gore v Bush???

I am impressed with your statistics...

But common sense trumps statistics...

And common sense tells me that requiring a picture ID is not an outrageous requirement for people who want to vote...

Now, if people have a nefarious reason for not wanting to obtain an ID, then they shouldn't be voting... Because that means they are crooks and they would likely vote for crooks..

Again, if you want to have THAT discussion, let's go.. :D

The bottom line is, it's no big deal for people to obtain a picture ID..

A picture ID is, for all intents and purposes, required for daily life in the US anyways...

There is no logical reason to be opposed to picture IDs for voting....

Disenfranchisement is not a logical argument, it's an emotional argument because NO ONE can be disenfranchised by the requirement of Picture ID except if they CHOOSE to be disenfranchised.

Michale....
139

And it was wrong then. And if Democrats were pushing it today, I'd be against it.

But they're not the ones trying to limit voting to the "privileged".

Using this bit o' fanciful reasoning, we could disqualify all citizens of the US from voting because some of the citizens of the US are felons.

Hey, it's your reasoning. If you want to call it fanciful, I guess that's your call.

Ergo, requiring a picture ID is a logical and rational response to prevent it from happening.

Let's look at some statistics to examine this claim. From 2002 to 2005, there were exactly 55 people convicted of voter fraud. Let's assume 100,000,000 people vote in a Federal election year.

This means the percentage of voter fraud was .000055 percent. In effect, zero, with the current system of identification.

The question is, is it possible for a new voter ID law to improve these statistics?

Let's assume a sunny outlook and say that the new law decreases the fraud by 50%. I'll be optimistic. Elections impacted = none.

This would reduce the voter fraud to .000027 percent. Elections impacted = none. This is the benefit side.

Now let's look at the other side of the equation. The impact. In South Carolina, there are 217,000 registered voters in the state who lack a state driver's license or photo ID. These voters would then be required to obtain a driver's license or they would be unable to vote.

This is just South Carolina. Estimates across the United States put the number at closer to 5 million people.

Now how much additional overhead is required for all of the additional government red tape. In the state of Minnesota, a study was conducted on the cost of these mandates.

H.F. 210 would cost $84 million over 3 years and H.F. 210 would cost over $25 million. This is just the state of Minnesota.

So here's my simple cost benefit analysis:

Benefit
-------
1. Reducing voter fraud from .000055 to .000027

Cost/Impact
-----------
1. Potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to implement new systems
2. Making it more difficult for up to 5 million more people to vote

Now, some of these numbers are admittedly not exact. But are they close? Help me out here, Michale. If not, which numbers would you disagree with or what am I missing.

If so, it helps provide some criteria for making a decision. This is what a business would do. A non-partisan cost/benefit analysis.

This is what I would like to see in our media. This is what you almost never see. You see, here's what one side says, and then here's what the other side says.

With no analysis.

When you start looking at the numbers, here's where I don't see the value of new Voter ID laws. The current system works well, no elections are being impacted, and it would come with a significant cost.

Now the reason this makes sense from a cost benefit perspective to the GOP is because under benefit (to them) they believe is "Less Democratic Voting" and that justifies all the cost of implementing new systems.

-David

I wonder if, in keeping up with the times, if MTV were around today they'd be hosting an event called Block the Vote! :)

"Current circumstances" being whether one is a Democrat or Republican.. :D

You yourself stated "You know these laws would only be fully enforced against voters profiled to be likely Democrats."

To a politically agnostic person like me, Republicans using the picture ID to disenfranchise Democrat voters is as likely Democrats fighting picture IDs so they can commit fraud...

I realize that you can't admit to that... One of the hazards of being beholden to one political Party over the other..

You will never convince me that obtaining a picture ID an outrageous requirement for voting.

Especially in light of the fact that the level of difficulty in obtaining a picture ID is much higher for those that would vote Republican over those who would vote Democrat..

Of course, the criminal element would be the one group that obtaining a picture ID might not be possible..

If the Democratic Party wants to go on record as trying to protect that bloc of voters, I would be ECSTATIC to have that discussion.. :D

It's also the law -- it's explicitly stated in the highest law of the land, the Constitution -- that you can't have a poll tax.

And if we were talking about a "poll tax" then you would have a logical argument.

But we're not, so you don't...

Michale.....
138

And yet, there are enough people don't have the "right" kind of ID, to make these laws worthwhile for partisan hacks.

Republicans make the claim that Democrats are against Picture ID so that they can cheat in elections. That is also a logical and rational possibility.

It's a "logical possibility" in the sense of being an empirical question. It's not something where you can know a priori that it couldn't possibly happen, the way you claimed that it's absolutely impossible to disenfranchise a deserving voter.

But it's not rational, in the sense of being something that a rational person could believe given a moderate level of awareness of current circumstances.

1. It's the law that only American citizens can vote in an American election.

It's also the law -- it's explicitly stated in the highest law of the land, the Constitution -- that you can't have a poll tax. Voting rights (for federal elections) cannot legally be made contingent on ANY payment, even if the amount seems trivial to you.

By contrast, states do have the right to let non-citizens vote if they want to. There's nothing in the Constitution to restrict voting to citizens. The protections of voting rights (no poll tax, no age limit above 18) are extended only to citizens. On the other hand, resident aliens are included in the population for purposes of apportioning representation in the House.

Eligibility to vote for federal office is always "The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." So states could give aliens the right to vote for federal office too, if they so chose.

Morally, of course, the right to vote belongs to "the governed". That includes resident aliens.

Using this bit o' fanciful reasoning, we could disqualify all citizens of the US from voting because some of the citizens of the US are felons...

Should the owners of The Bank Of BumFuq Kentucky leave the doors unlocked every night because it's only been robbed once in it's 100 year history, a statistical insignificance??

Of course not..

Laws and actions to PREVENT illegal acts are the epitome of logic...

Michale.....
137

The key difference is knowingly false accusations of racism...

If someone IS making anti-semitic remarks, I see nothing wrong with calling them on it..

Just as I see nothing wrong with calling people when they make racist remarks..

The key problem with the JournoList was that the conspiracy consisted of making knowingly false accusations of racism in an effort to stifle debate and discussion in opposition of His Lordship, Obama...

Michale
136

Regardless.. It shows that it CAN happen...

Ergo, requiring a picture ID is a logical and rational response to prevent it from happening..

There's also racists in the Tea Party. Does this mean the Tea Party is racist? No.

I am assuming you are referring to our little sojourn thru history...

In those days, the entire Democratic Party was racist... That's the history of your chosen Party..

If "instances" are the burden of proof, then using your logic, all I have to do to show the Tea Party is racist is find a few racist members.

OK I guess you weren't talking about the little history lesson.. :D

Can Voter Fraud happen??

Yes, it can..

HAS Voter Fraud happen??

Yes, it has..

Will picture IDs help prevent Voter Fraud..

Yes, it will..

Will picture IDs make it impossible for a legal voter to vote.

No, it will not..

I really fail to see the problem here..

As I said, in reality it's harder for Republican voters to get IDs then it is for Democrat voters to get IDs...

But I think I am beginning to see why the Left has a problem with picture IDs..

What group would be most disinclined to go get an ID???

I think you see where I am going with that... :D

Maybe there should be a law that says only people who own property can vote.

That's the way it used to be. And I think it was the Democratic Party who pushed that idea and held onto it for so long...

Requiring a picture ID will not prevent ANY voter who wants to vote from voting...

It's really THAT simple...

Michale.....
135

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/08/right_wing_listserv_targets_israels_critics/

:)

Instances do not equal a systemic issue .

There's also racists in the Tea Party. Does this mean the Tea Party is racist? No.

Does this mean we should be making laws to ban Tea Party members from voting? No.

If "instances" are the burden of proof, then using your logic, all I have to do to show the Tea Party is racist is find a few racist members.

There is no systemic voting identification issue. Occurrences of voter fraud are statistically insignificant.

Translation: There is no problem.

I wonder who the 1% are going to go after next when going after the poor doesn't work? Maybe there should be a law that says only people who own property can vote.

-David

That would be #131

Michale
132

I was referring to the here and now... Our whole entire discussion on this issues was referring to the here and now.

There was absolutely NO reason to bring up the past that is more than a century old.

However, if you DO want to go back that far, then by all means, let's go back that far.

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

I think the Democrat's Campaign Slogan of 1868 was especially telling..

“This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”

That just covers up to the start of the 20th Century...

Would you like to see more???

You know these laws would only be fully enforced against voters profiled to be likely Democrats.

Assumes facts not in evidence and is an example of political bigotry at it's finest...

So there's no need for the outcome to actually be affected by the will of the voters. Right?

You mean, as opposed to today where the outcome is chosen by the courts via lawsuits?? {{{{{{{{cough}}}}}}} Gore v Bush {{{{{cough}}}}} {{{{{cough}}}}}

Oh yes, it's SOO much better that way...

All of this political garbage makes for fine theater..

But the fact is, it's the law that only American citizens can vote in an election.

It's very very easy to acquire a state ID. If one looks at things logically and rationally, it's harder for people who likely vote Republican to get an ID than it would be for people who likely vote Democrat.

As far as expense?? For the cost of a case of beer or a carton of cigarettes a person could get an ID..

If voting is not worth giving up beer or cigarettes for the week, then I would have to assume that said person just really isn't interested in voting..

Having to show a picture ID to vote is not an outrageous, unfair or grossly inconvenient requirement.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court held that persons must be able to identify themselves to police and can be held if they don't.

So, having a legal ID is a necessity that goes beyond simple voting..

You claim that Republicans are simply going to use the ID requirement to disenfranchise voters likely to vote Democrat. That is a logical and rational possibility.

Republicans make the claim that Democrats are against Picture ID so that they can cheat in elections. That is also a logical and rational possibility.

Of course, I don't expect ya'all to concede THAT point. :D

Regardless of political partisanship, three facts stand out and, for me, are the overriding factors in forming my opinion.

1. It's the law that only American citizens can vote in an American election.

2. Having a legal/official picture ID is necessary for many facets of life in America.

3. Obtaining a legal/official picture ID is not difficult or expensive in the least.

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale....

We wouldn't have needed to on my account. You're the one who said it not only didn't happen but can't possibly happen.

Suppose I don't directly take away your vote. But suppose I do take away a bunch of votes of those who would vote the same way you do -- as many as it takes to ensure that your candidate isn't elected. That would be fine with you, right? You don't think you have any right to vote.

You think it's fine to put up barriers as long as the most determined voter imaginable would be able to surmount them, and as long as it's Republicans doing it on some Republican pretext, right? And sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. After all, the only voters that would be affected are the laziest, good-for-nothing-est 99% of a politically-chosen subset of the electorate. (You know these laws would only be fully enforced against voters profiled to be likely Democrats. So it would be fine if they were enforced just as selectively against Republicans instead, right?)

So there's no need for the outcome to actually be affected by the will of the voters. Right?

hehehehehehehehehehe

How funny is THAT!!! :D

Michale
130

Yes and it was usually a DEMOCRAT who was holding that noose..

Do we REALLY want or need to go there???

Michale....
129

They're called absentee ballots. And yes, we must have them because it is unjust to disenfranchise those who have difficulty traveling.

I am not talking about traveling..

I am talking about too lazy or too involved in the afternoon Soap to get one's lazy ass out of the house to go down to voting station to vote..

David,
Republicans are passing laws to make it harder to vote in the hopes that this targets more Democrats.

No, Republicans are passing laws to insure that only people who are allowed to vote do so..

The BY PRODUCT of this is that some who would vote Democrat may not be inclined to vote.. Just as some who would vote Republican ALSO may be disinclined to vote...

The problem the Democrats have is one of enthusiasm.. Obama has really killed the enthusiasm of Democrats in voting. You are concerned that the added hassle, coupled with this lack of enthusiasm might mean less votes for Democrats.

It's a legitimate concern, but I must point out that getting an ID is only one component of that concern. The other component, lack of enthusiasm, is clearly the fault of Democrats..

In other words, if a person was really pumped about voting Democrat, a little thing like getting an ID wouldn't stop them..

With voter ID laws, the difference is that there's no evidence of a real and systemic problem. It's just partisan. For the sake of partisan.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

As you have admitted, there HAVE been instances of voter fraud...

Again, I am constrained to point out that Democrats WOULD be for picture IDs to vote if it would help them instead of hurt them.

This being the case, I just can't get passionate about the Democrat's argument because I know it's a partisan argument..

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the "outrageousness" of requiring a picture ID to vote..

I don't think it's a big deal. It certainly won't PREVENT someone who really wants to vote from voting..

It might prevent the lazy and the good-for-nothings from voting but is that really such a bad thing??

Or are you saying that the lazy and the good-for-nothings are solid Democrat voting blocs?? :D

Democrats are famous for their GET OUT THE VOTE drives..

Nothing is stopping them from mounting GET OUT AND GET AN ID campaigns...

The existing system of identification has worked.

No it hasn't... Every election since 2000 has been fracked up more and more.. More and more elections are being settled by lawsuits then ever before..

Will picture IDs fix this??

Maybe... Let's find out...

The bottom line is requiring a picture ID to vote is not outrageous and it is accordance with the law...

Michale.....

Yes you can. For example, it's illegal to commit murder. To help uphold that law, we have laws authorizing funding of police, laws empowering police to do various things, laws governing trials, laws requiring people to report crimes under certain circumstances ... .

I have quatloos on Holder being gone by the next election..

Anyone wanna double down?? :D

Michale
127

Actually, the null string is a proof of nothing. Every line of the null string is either one of the postulates, a previously-proved theorem, or the result of applying modus ponens to previous lines. The last line of the null string is the null string. Hence the null string is a proof of the null string, i.e. of nothing. QED.

You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can. You just need strong enough premises. "A negative" here seems to mean a statement of the form "there is no ____". Well, there is no greatest prime number.

Republicans are passing laws to make it harder to vote in the hopes that this targets more Democrats.

They are passing laws to uphold the law.

You can't pass a law to uphold a law.

Democrat redistricting.

Redistricting is a different topic. And yes, both sides do it.

Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.

Hadn't thought of this being done for political reasons, but I'll give you a nod. I could potentially see politicians thinking this might benefit them with new voters. Republicans have proposed legislation similar to the DREAM act as well. They recognize the influence of the Hispanic vote and both sides are interested in winning Hispanics.

Everyone admits that there is an issue with our immigration system. Issues for those living in our country illegally. And issues for us like schools, healthcare, infrastructure, etc.

With voter ID laws, the difference is that there's no evidence of a real and systemic problem. It's just partisan. For the sake of partisan.

The existing system of identification has worked.

New laws would simply be bigger government, more cost, and designed to make it harder for certain groups to vote.

-David

The ability to vote is in fact denied under some circumstances. Therefore it's a privilege, and therefore it's ok for it to be denied? That seems to be the reasoning.

I say there's a right to political participation (not necessarily voting) for anyone governed by a government. Here's my reasoning --

Premise 1: A right is the condition of having it be wrong for others to do that which constitutes violation of the right. Premise 2: Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Premise 3: "Consent" that cannot be meaningfully withheld is no consent at all. Premise 4: Under our institutions, voting plays such a role that political participation cannot be adequate without it.

By (2) and (3), any government that denies to the governed the right to express or withhold their consent, is going beyond its just powers. By (1), that can be rephrased as saying that the governed have a right to political participation. By (4), that amounts (not necessarily, but currently) to a right to vote.

Note that violating a right does not extinguish it. Doing something wrong once doesn't make it ok to do it again.

[CW] 125
Well, properly shouldn't it be "all of you"? I'm no English major, but "you all" (the long form of y'all) is inherently wrong, isn't it?

What is there about the word "all" that makes it inherently an indefinite pronoun (disclosure: I had to look up what the word is for that kind of pronoun) instead of an adverb?

Let it be stipulated that "all" can be an adverb: if you have the choice of whether to say "you quickly went up the stairs" or "you went quickly up the stairs", why shouldn't you have the choice of whether to say "you all are tall" or "you are all tall"?

Of course, "y'all" isn't just an alternate spelling of "you all". It's a new word. Merging "you" and "all" is its etymology, but that doesn't keep it from being a new word. There's no more inherent reason to demand that "y'all" be regarded as still being two separate words "you" and "all", than there is to demand that "until" be separated into "und" and "till". The origin of "y'all" is much more recent, no question there. But that's not inherent.

"You" is second person plural (and singular). "You all" is therefore redundant.

"You all" definitely is not redundant. As a specification of a plural, it would be redundant only if "you" already specified the plural. But "you" can be singular as well, so the "all" provides additional information. It wouldn't exactly be redundant in its literal meaning either. Compare "we all". It implicitly contrasts with "some of us": both are plural but they have different meanings.

That is an uncomfortably strong argument. All us Lefties should meditate on the question at the end, there. It certainly made me squirm for a moment...

Not me. I've long known that there are plenty of nincompoops on the left. JFK probably wouldn't have won without the graveyard vote. It's not that there's no one dishonest on the left. There are plenty of dishonest people on the left. The problem is that it's well-nigh impossible for there to be any honest people on the right, the way the battle lines are now drawn.

Conservatism normally provides a reason to be on the right, but not now. Conservatives, real conservatives in the old-fashioned meaning of the word, those who respect the organic development of institutions and traditions and distrust idealistic schemes of social engineering -- they're now 100% on the left, simply because for the last 30 years it's the radical right that's been in a position to undertake such schemes.

[126] BashiBazouk
How about threaded comments?

Yuck. I would much prefer pagination.

[127] Michale
I mean, look at it.. "WE MUST HAVE DOOR TO DOOR VOTING BOOTHS

They're called absentee ballots. And yes, we must have them because it is unjust to disenfranchise those who have difficulty traveling.

NO ONE... absolutely NO ONE can disenfranchise a voter who is determined to vote...

Again, shame on you. There is no excuse for saying that in a country where, for almost a century, it was basically policy that people of the "wrong" color who tried to vote in the wrong part of the country would be disenfranchised permanently, with a noose.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lying-holder-says-has-do-your-state-mind_611731.html

I think I understand it..

Bush lied..

But when Democrats lie, it's a "state of mind"...

"Neil said that Santa Claus is a state of mind.."
"Yea... Like Neil!!!"
-The Santa Claus

These are the kinds of clowns that are running this country...

Michale
126

When I click on the PREVIEW COMMENT button, I get an "after image" of sorts..

http://sjfm.us/temp/cwpreview2.jpg

Just FYI

Michale
124

Everyone, just to let you know, he's paying to annoy us.

Hay!!! I resemble that remark!!! :D

So get him fired up, as everytime he takes your bait from now until New Year's, he's paying a dollar to do so.

At Least!!! :D

This little sojourn thru this particular commentary has cost me $36.50!!! :D

So FAR!! :D

Michale
123

Which is not to say that there are not logical and rational reasons for Illegal Immigrant amnesty..

There are.

Just as there are logical and rational reasons for picture IDs when voting..

But the BY-PRODUCT of picture IDs for voting COULD be less votes for Democrats..

Just as the BY-PRODUCT of Illegal Immigrant amnesty COULD be MORE votes for Democrats...

You see how it can work both ways??

Michale.....
122

But that's the whole point..

Republicans aren't passing laws to prevent Democrats from voting..

They are passing laws to uphold the law.. If that causes some voters not to want to vote well then it seems to me that those voters would be disinclined to vote anyways..

They would be the kind of voters who look outside and say, "It's too cold.. I am going to stay home and not vote.."

Should we move the VOTE to a time when it's warmer so as to not "disenfranchise" voters who aren't real thrilled about cold days???

What I haven't seen them doing is abusing their elected power to keep themselves in power.

Really??

Democrat redistricting. Illegal Immigrant Amnesty...

The list goes on and on...

Each Party uses their position to jimmy and jockey the laws to better suit their own Party and screw over the other Party...

Democrats do it. Republicans do it..

But you only cry FOUL when Republicans do it..

To me this says something about conservative ideas. It may also backfire on them as their attempts to go after unions in Ohio for the exact same reason (they tend to vote Democrat) backfired on them.

Time will tell... About 1 years time, to be precise.. :D

Remember how insufferable I was after the mid-term Dem shellacking?? :D

Michale....
121

Both sides politic. But there is a difference. You don't see Democrats, once they're in power, trying to pass laws to prevent Republicans from voting.

Will you see Democrats arguing for Democratic principles? Sure. Will you see them trying to persuade people? Sure. Will you see them trying to encourage people to vote and to vote Democrat? Sure.

All things you see Republicans do as well. Fair enough.

What I haven't seen them doing is abusing their elected power to keep themselves in power. At least not to the extent of the Republican party.

To me this says something about conservative ideas. It may also backfire on them as their attempts to go after unions in Ohio for the exact same reason (they tend to vote Democrat) backfired on them.

-David

You can't prove a negative.

As you and CW admit, there HAVE been cases of voter fraud discovered... If there are some then it's likely there are more.

Regardless, for someone who REALLY wants to vote, asking them to show a picture ID is not as outrageous as ya'all make it out to be....

You have to ask yourself..

Does the person really want to vote??

Or does the Democratic Party really want the person to vote??

Or maybe I'm just tired of all the slinging around of names ... "socialist" ... "Communist" ... "homophobic" ... "gay" ... "feminist" ... "sexist" ... etc.

I'm with you there...

Still not sold one way or another, but what I see happening in certain cases is, if you assume someone is a racist, and accuse them of that, it is end of discussion.

Yep, it's a Godwin Corollary

You say that, Michale, with a smile. Is it because most of your arguments are based on a deep-seated unproven suspicion that "the Left" is somehow conspiring against you?

Not conspiring against me..

But it is undeniable that the Left is conspiring against the Right. Just as the Right is conspiring against the Left..

And BOTH are so thoroughly inept as leaders, it's people like you and me that suffer..

BTW, Michale. Just to be clear. My comment about intent is said with a smile because I agree with you that intent is difficult to prove. This is why I don't try to prove it and also why I strongly question any argument which focuses on intent.

Again, agreed..

Even though I am quite cynical when it comes to politicians (Left OR Right), if there is a logical, rational and non-nefarious reason for things, the Pollyanna in me will go for that reason.

I assume the best, but expect the worst.. :D

Michale
120

That had to have been awesome!!! :D

Michale
119

Yes, it is. You can't prove nothing. Which is what you're statement implies you're looking for. And without evidence, you can't prove anything.

I would answer: it is in the intent. If the intent is to disenfranchise minority voters, then I would call it racist. Of course, maybe I'm making assumptions which can't be adequately proven by doing so, but that was where I was coming from.

CW- I wanted to respond to this because this, I believe, would have been very similar to what I would have said. The trouble is that intent is often quite tough to prove. So while I do believe there are many racist things that are happening, I'm not sure if I believe anymore that trying to call people out as "racist" is an effective way of fighting these acts.

Or maybe I'm just tired of all the slinging around of names ... "socialist" ... "Communist" ... "homophobic" ... "gay" ... "feminist" ... "sexist" ... etc.

*sigh*

Still not sold one way or another, but what I see happening in certain cases is, if you assume someone is a racist, and accuse them of that, it is end of discussion. Perhaps I'm coming at this from a learning background where I've always found that you almost never change anything, especially as something as deep-seated as racism can be, through direct confrontation.

That said, I still believe there's a time and a place for it. For instance, I'm completely in favor of laws which outlaw workplace discrimination. But in most discussions, I always try to avoid it.

Now that THAT has been established, good luck proving intent.. :D

You say that, Michale, with a smile. Is it because most of your arguments are based on a deep-seated unproven suspicion that "the Left" is somehow conspiring against you?

:)

Happy almost Friday!
-David

How many times has Obama visited Israel?..... as president..

Forgot to add that in..

Michale
118

You should be looking at the party in Egypt which came in second, not the Muslim Brotherhood.

Exactly my point. The radical Islamist group came in first with some 30 percent of the vote. The REALLY AGGRESSIVE radical Islamist group came in second with some 28 percent of the vote...

So, we have a radical to REALLY radical Islamist group with almost 60 percent control of the Egypt government..

So, WHO predicted that Egypt would go the way of Iran??? :D

So what's the answer? Not allow them democracy? Prop up dictators in the region, as we did with Saddam Hussein (see: 1980s, Rumsfeld), Mubarak, Shah of Iran, and all the rest of them? Or what?

I don't know what the best answer is...

I DO know what the worst answer is.. And that is allowing another Iran-style Western Hating theocracy to come to power..

Regardless, my point wasn't to knock Obama about it.. Well, not at first anyways.. :D My initial point was simply to say, "I told ya'all so"... :D

I would answer: it is in the intent. If the intent is to disenfranchise minority voters, then I would call it racist. Of course, maybe I'm making assumptions which can't be adequately proven by doing so, but that was where I was coming from.

I would agree... Like the definition of terrorism, intent is a VERY important factor.

Now that THAT has been established, good luck proving intent.. :D

Is there a logical and rational reason to require picture IDs at voting booths.

Yes there is.

That should be the only guiding factor..

"You" is second person plural (and singular). "You all" is therefore redundant. I think...

"In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant'"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

:D

No presidential candidate has ever been ASKED for his birth certificate before Barack Obama.

But you missed MY point.. (Or rather Bashi's point... Or was it dsws' point??)

Obama wasn't asked for his BC because he was black. He was asked for his BC, first and foremost because he was a Democrat and the people asking were Republicans. Secondly, he was asked for his BC because his past was sufficiently muddled to warrant a second look. And thirdly, he was asked for his BC because that "second look" produced such an aggressive and multi-lawyered denial from Obama that it made people wonder...

As dsws so aptly put it, there is a logical and rational scenario where a pasty white President would also be asked for his Birth Certificate..

When, exactly has Obama kow-towed to Muslims, or (for that matter) apologized for, say, killing OBL?

How many Muslim countries has Obama visited as President??

How many times has Obama visited Israel??

How many Muslim leaders has Obama insulted??

How many Israeli leaders has Obama insulted??

How many Muslim countries has Obama's actions threatened their very existence??

How many of Obama's actions and/or lack of actions have threatened Israeli existence??

If that ain't kow-towing to Muslims at the expense of Israel, I don't know what is..

To be fair, Obama seems to be pursuing an aggressive covert campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear program. For that, and assuming he is the one who ordered it, he does deserve credit.

Here's a better example: states that are limiting early voting, when the proportion of early voters is high for minorities. Why in the heck would you limit such voting? There simply is no such reason, that isn't based in racism and prejudice against the poor (who often have problems voting a Tuesday workday).

What is the reason given for limiting early voting??

For example, is it to save money??

That would be a logical and rational reason that would dispute the idea that it is racism..

That is an uncomfortably strong argument. All us Lefties should meditate on the question at the end, there. It certainly made me squirm for a moment...

That's what I love to hear...

I think the HIGHEST compliment that can be paid on these pages is:

"Ya know, you make a good point. I am going to have to think about that"

That's pure gold for me... Thanx :D

But to the point itself.. It's kind of what I meant in the post to David immediately preceding this one..

NO ONE... absolutely NO ONE can disenfranchise a voter who is determined to vote...

NO ONE...

"There can be no offense where none is taken."
-Sarek of Vulcan

As I said above, show me a person who is a disenfranchised voter because of having to have a picture ID and I'll show you a person who really isn't really interested in voting anyways...

I think your rights and priveleges should be restored and you should be a full citizen once again.

I agree...

Voting is a right. It is a right which can be taken away by a state, but it is a basic right.

I am willing to concede the point...

Are you willing to concede the point that it is a right that comes with responsibilities??

As for your Borg comment, wasn't it "Star Trek, the Movie, I" that you're thinking? Heh.

Yea. In the non-canon "Eden" series of books by William Shatner, it was shown that V'GER was actually an early Borg probe..

If you love Trek "history", you would love the Eden series of books.. It ties things up so perfectly, it's awesome...

OK, Kent State is not a joking matter. But then, to be fully honest, when younger, I repeated a few Challenger jokes, which were also equally as reprehensible. So nobody's perfect...

Yea, one of my more embarrassing memories as a young adult... It was right after the Vandenberg AFB/MX Missile protests where I was a cop, so you can imagine the context...

And don't forget to donate to our pledge drive! I can always unleash the kittens, once again, you have been warned!!!

That's just cruel..... :D

Michale.....
117

Based on the evidence, I believe that the new plans will disenfranchise at least 1 million voters

If getting an ID will disenfranchise 1 million voters, then it seems to me that those 1 million voters weren't really interested in voting anyways..

I mean, look at it..

"WE MUST HAVE DOOR TO DOOR VOTING BOOTHS BECAUSE THERE ARE A MILLION PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THEIR HOMES AND THEY WOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED IF THEY CAN'T HAVE THE VOTING BOOTH COME TO THEM!!!"

What would any logical person's response to that be??

"If a person doesn't want to leave their homes to vote, then I guess they weren't really interested in voting anyways"

Same applies to getting an ID. If they don't want to go thru the "hassle" of getting an ID, then they don't deserve the privilege to vote..

As far as the point of 1 million fraudulent vote casts vs 1 voter disenfranchised....

IMNSHO, it's better that 1 voter be disenfranchised than an entire election called into question..

The Left, OF ALL PEOPLE, should understand that concept.. :D

based on close to zero evidence that any fraudulent votes have actually been cast.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

We have rules already to register voters. They both safeguard elections and ensure everyone who is a citizen can vote. And surprise ... they work!

Really?? Each and every year, elections are more and more contested, are more and more decided by the courts rather than the people.

And YOU say that is "working"??

For some reason, I hear Charlie Sheen in my head saying, "WINNING".... :D

But, this is an interesting admission..

You apparently don't mind "rules" when it comes to elections..

You just don't seem to like the rules that would hurt the Democratic Party agenda... :D

Cheap shot.. I know you are sincerely concerned about the rights of the voters...

But, as we both know, you are not the typical Democrat.. The typical Democrat is only concerned about the Democrat agenda.. If the voting bloc that would be depressed by requiring ID was a bloc that voted GOP, you and I both know that the Left would be screaming to high heaven for IDs...

Democrat: "I see you're going to the polling booth to vote. Would you like a ride?"
Republican: "You would do that for me??"
Democrat: "Sure.. I'll be happy to run you over with my car."

:D

All they've got are things like 2 black guys in Philadelphia standing outside a voting establishment.

What does THAT have to do with requiring IDs to vote??

Absolutely nothing..

Michale
116

How about threaded comments?

Sigh. Maybe I could make it a toggle, where you could see it either way you wanted...

OK, here goes.

Michale [66] -

You should be looking at the party in Egypt which came in second, not the Muslim Brotherhood.

Let me ask you a question: is Saudi Arabia our ally?

They are the strictest "Islamist" government in the region, and yet they still sell us oil and all that. If you allow the Middle East democracy, and allow it to vote for whom they like, they are going to vote for people we don't approve of. THat's a given. So what's the answer? Not allow them democracy? Prop up dictators in the region, as we did with Saddam Hussein (see: 1980s, Rumsfeld), Mubarak, Shah of Iran, and all the rest of them? Or what?

akadjian [91] -

I would answer: it is in the intent. If the intent is to disenfranchise minority voters, then I would call it racist. Of course, maybe I'm making assumptions which can't be adequately proven by doing so, but that was where I was coming from.

dsws [95] -

Well, properly shouldn't it be "all of you"? I'm no English major, but "you all" (the long form of y'all) is inherently wrong, isn't it? Where's nypoet22 when you need him?

"You" is second person plural (and singular). "You all" is therefore redundant. I think...

But then I have problems with grammar rules myself. I mean, if that Scotsman had his way and declared split infinitives beyond the pale (which I totally reject because his reasoning was "Latin has no split infinitives" which is just horse manure), then we could never have the sentence "To boldly go where no man has gone before" which I'm sure Michale would join me in saying would be a shame, indeed. Heh.

Michale [96] -

You're missing the point. No presidential candidate has ever been ASKED for his birth certificate before Barack Obama. THAT is the point. McCain had to get an act of Congress to declare that he was eligible for the presidency because of where he was born (Canal Zone), but did anyone ever see HIS birth certificate? No, because nobody asked. THAT is the key difference.

When, exactly has Obama kow-towed to Muslims, or (for that matter) apologized for, say, killing OBL? Or is only Bush allowed to hold hands with Muslims when they visit?

Michale [97-99] -

What's it you always say? "The more the merrier!"?

Heh.

akadjian [100] -

and Michale in various places:

It's the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). The Black Panthers have totally disavowed them. It's like the difference between the "Splinter IRA" and the "IRA". Doesn't sound like much, but a BIG difference. Sorry, just had to say that.

As for voting, I'm with you.

Michale [101], the other part of this is that Righties (and Fox) point to voter registration drives as some sort of grand conspiracy to commit voter fraud. This is not true, as it is apples and oranges. Grunt workers turn in forms for "Mickey Mouse" so they'll get paid (they work on a per-form basis, often). This doesn't mean "Mickey Mouse" turns up to vote. Republicans have launched thousands of investigations into voter fraud, and have turned up only a handful of prosecuted cases. It is a conspiracy which does not exist. But that doesn't stop them from enacting laws which make it harder for everyone to vote -- and almost impossible (in some cases) for minorities to do so. If you're living in a nursing home, how hard is it for you to renew a drivers license that means nothing to you otherwise?

Here's a better example: states that are limiting early voting, when the proportion of early voters is high for minorities. Why in the heck would you limit such voting? There simply is no such reason, that isn't based in racism and prejudice against the poor (who often have problems voting a Tuesday workday).

[102]

Maybe in your state, but certainly not everywhere. Also: how much does it cost? Why should people be forced to pay this "poll tax" to the state?

Both of you -

Don't forget that these are state-by-state laws. What holds true in your state may not hold true in others. For example: in the West, "absentee voting" is all the rage -- it's easy, it's convenient, hell, in Oregon EVERYONE votes absentee now. In many East Coast states, you have to PROVE (with a plane ticket, for example) that you will be out of the state on election day. Big difference.

akadjian [103] -

I totally agree with all your points.

[104] -

That is an excellent, excellent point. The Law of Unintended Consequences is harsh, at times.

Michale [aside] -

Woo hoo! 100 comments!

Everyone, just to let you know, he's paying to annoy us. I've so far receieved $100 from Michale in our year-end pledge drive. So get him fired up, as everytime he takes your bait from now until New Year's, he's paying a dollar to do so.

:-)

Michale [107] -

That is an uncomfortably strong argument. All us Lefties should meditate on the question at the end, there. It certainly made me squirm for a moment...

Michale [110] -

This is a problem for me. Do you agree that felons should lose the right to vote for the rest of their lives? I don't. Many states don't. But some states do. I have a gigantic moral problem with this, and a constitutional one as well. Once you've "paid your debt to society" I think your rights and priveleges should be restored and you should be a full citizen once again.

You may, however, disagree with this statement.

Later on, however, you are just full of moosepoop. Voting is a right. It is a right which can be taken away by a state, but it is a basic right. It is guaranteed in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the subsequent Amendments. It is NOT a privelege, like driving.

Historical footnote for you to ponder: how many of the amendments passed after the Bill of Rights have to do with voting rights? Answer: more than for any other subject -- count them if you don't believe me.

As for the Voyager news, well, they're mis-defining "Milky Way" -- Voyager has ALWAYS been in the Milky Way, even when it was being built on the ground. But I have to admit, this story was interesting, because I was sitting in Goddard Space Flight Center (in Greenbelt, MD) watching LIVE as the photos from Voyager came in for the first time from Jupiter. I watched as each photo slowly came in, and firmed up, and color was added. It was the coolest space thing I've ever witnessed in my life. I got to watch as scientists freaked out over the volcanoes on Io, which could plainly be seen to be erupting.

As for your Borg comment, wasn't it "Star Trek, the Movie, I" that you're thinking? Heh.

dsws [114] -

Right on. Well said.

BashiBazouk [116] -

Nuclear weapons are liberal? Wait a minute...

On assholes: I once lived with a neighbor who said one of the smartest things I've ever heard in my life:

"There's more assholes in this world than people."

Heh.

Michale [117] -

OK, Kent State is not a joking matter. But then, to be fully honest, when younger, I repeated a few Challenger jokes, which were also equally as reprehensible. So nobody's perfect...

[118] -

He will indeed be missed. Col. Blake was good, but Potter was on the air much longer, and was well-loved by the end of M*A*S*H's run...

BashiBazouk [119] -

I keep saying: keep them in Washington and don't allow them to fly home every damn weekend. They'll forge some ties then...

akadjian [122] -

Nice Mr. Burns quote. Just had to say that.

OK, that's it. Man, let's move on to this week's articles.

And don't forget to donate to our pledge drive! I can always unleash the kittens, once again, you have been warned!!!

Heh.

:-)

-CW

Based on the evidence, I believe that the new plans will disenfranchise at least 1 million voters based on close to zero evidence that any fraudulent votes have actually been cast.

So I believe about the exact opposite of your statement. A million disenfranchised voters for every 1 fraudulent vote.

The only crime that's been committed by these voters is that many vote Democrat.

Unlimited voting without ANY kinds of restrictions or safeguards.

We have rules already to register voters. They both safeguard elections and ensure everyone who is a citizen can vote. And surprise ... they work!

Do you know how I know they work?

Because FoxNews ... the FoxNews ... FoxNews has been unable to come up with any major evidence of voter fraud other than small, isolated examples. Which they will tell you about incessantly to try to convince you that fraud is rampant.

All they've got are things like 2 black guys in Philadelphia standing outside a voting establishment.

Imagine how much we'd hear about it if they actually had any evidence :)

I think Rupert Murdoch would crap himself in flatulent ecstasy if any actual evidence existed.

You know there's no evidence though because if he had any, FoxNews would be screaming it. Because even when they don't have it, they go out of their way to make it up.

But I believe we've hit our point of disagreement my friend. You believe in a society for the privileged. And I don't. I just hope you always stay one of the privileged so that at least you can enjoy it.

I don't believe it's ok to cheat. Period. Not even if I think the other side is doing it too because I read it on some liberal blog. No shades of gray here :)

-David

p.s. As a very funny sidenote, there was evidence in 2008 that apparently Ann Coulter committed felony voter fraud, but the State of Florida (a very Republican leaning state) apparently decided not to press charges.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6046

Just happened to stumble on this when looking for evidence of actual voter fraud. Which there didn't seem to be much of other than isolated cased.

Yea, and it's societies fault that felons commit felonies, right??

Spare me the bleeding heart.. :D

No, I don't. You seem to be.

"I DID say that. Would YOU say that??"
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

So, DO you believe that it's better to have a million fraudulent votes cast rather than one disenfranchised voter..

This is the system you want. Democracy for some. You said it yourself, "the privileged".

No matter how you want to slice it, voting is a privilege.. A privilege that CAN be taken away under certain circumstances..

If you want voting opened to all then make the case and change the law..

But, be careful what you wish for...

Unlimited voting without ANY kinds of restrictions or safeguards...

What happens when a community of 10,000 people produced 500,000 votes???

Because that's exactly what a free-for-all voting structure will produce...

Michale.....
115

Felons and the poor. They're all the same. Trash that should be picked up from the street. It's their fault they're poor. If they would just work harder, they'd be rich.

Smithers ... release the hounds!

You seem to be saying that better 1 million illegal votes be cast rather than 1 legitimate voter not be allowed to vote.

How do we insure that only those authorized to vote ARE voting?

"Authorized" means there has to be an authorizor which means some people have more rights than others.

I do not believe in this.

This is the system you want. Democracy for some. You said it yourself, "the privileged".

-David

That's easy..

From the people who oppose Cain's policies..

That is, if you buy into that study....

Which I do not...

I think it was from the various eulogies of Tip O'neill after his death where I heard a few versions of the same story. That Tip and his colleagues across the aisle would spend the session rallying against each others position in the most fiery language possible. Then afterward meet up as friends, go out to dinner and hammer out a compromise over martinis. I wonder how we can get back to that level of civility in politics…

Now on THIS, we are in complete agreement...

Michale.....

What politically-contentious issue are the Republicans right about?

Not just stuff where they say the right thing half the time for rhetorical effect, but are on the other side when the tough choices have to be made. What are they actually right about?

There's plenty the Democrats are wrong about. But it seems pretty clear cut that the Republicans are worse than hopeless.

Absolutely. But where is that racial prejudice coming from? That is the interesting question.

I was then treated to a litany of complaints about this camera/surveillance oriented world and how it was all to get us used to 24/7 surveillance..

But, could that have not come from a libertarian just as easily?

I think it was from the various eulogies of Tip O'neill after his death where I heard a few versions of the same story. That Tip and his colleagues across the aisle would spend the session rallying against each others position in the most fiery language possible. Then afterward meet up as friends, go out to dinner and hammer out a compromise over martinis. I wonder how we can get back to that level of civility in politics…

RIP HARRY MORGAN aka Colonel Potter aka Officer Bill Gannon

Michale
113

You would be wrong.. :D But that's not a crime.. :D

And the conclusion it what I would expect: Race/racism is not the primary reason for disagreement with Obama's policies but it is provably a factor in the disagreement.

Then you would also agree with the statement that

"Race/racism is not the primary reason for disagreement with Cain's policies but it is provably a factor in the disagreement."

Correct???

Please point out ANYWHERE in ANYTHING I have written where I have said this...

It's a reasonable deduction, considering your posts of support for anything Left and your castigation of anything Right..

It begs an interesting question that I direct as much to tinsldr2 as you: do you have friends/family/inlaws/co-workers and you have good relations with that are liberal?

It's interesting that you should ask...

One of the many hats I wear here at work is the surveillance systems expert... After setting up a particularly snazzy multi-layered security surveillance system, I happened upon one of the ladies that worked here.. Her disdain for what I was doing was evidence clear by the expression of face...

Knowing I was going to regret it, I asked her what was wrong.. I was then treated to a litany of complaints about this camera/surveillance oriented world and how it was all to get us used to 24/7 surveillance..

It was like CW.COM had come to life!! :D

But, to answer your question, I work with liberals. I don't really have any friends, so that category is non applicable. Family?? That's a toughie... If you would have asked growing up, I would have said they were all flaming liberals, as evidenced by a Kent State "joke" I happened to utter at the dinner table which earned me some glares. In hindsight, it WAS in pretty poor taste, so.....

But I am not real close with my family, being on opposite coasts.. I think it's been 10 years since I talked with my brothers, but I try to talk to my mom at least once a month. My dad, less so...

To answer what I THINK you are asking, no.. I don't have many political discussions in real life.. But that's not because of any philosophical differences, but rather because of lack of contact and/or geographical isolation...

Michale
112

Your attempts to obfuscate the discussion with "layers" and "shades of gray" is what is disingenuous here...

I would argue that there is almost nothing in society that is black or white. It is all shades of gray and nuance. Not only that, it's the shades of gray and nuance that make it interesting. Without which I would most likely be one of the non-voting, not interested in politics majority.

You got backed into a corner with your support of that biased and flawed Stanford study and you are trying to "nuance" your way out of it..

Hardly. What I wrote above: Now if the discussion was even handed I would take it as a minor point in my favor... and I stand by that. The methodology of the study is sound enough if you read it. They did not use controls that you would have personally used but they did use valid controls none the less. And the conclusion it what I would expect: Race/racism is not the primary reason for disagreement with Obama's policies but it is provably a factor in the disagreement.

Discounting all universities because they tend liberal is a bit silly, no? It the internet liberal? Nuclear weapons? Ok, ok logical fallacies I know but at what point do you draw the distinction that the liberalism no longer influences the research?

The problem we have is your continued belief that the nice people are all on the Left and the assholes are all on the Right..

Please point out ANYWHERE in ANYTHING I have written where I have said this...

In the 6 years that I have been posting to CW's commentaries, I think I have amply proven beyond ANY doubt that there ARE nice people on the Right and there ARE assholes on the Left...

I find this a strange thing to post. Not the truth of it and it's reverse but that it would be a revelation that we would need convincing of and not a self evident truth. I now I as well as other on this forum have stated as such many times.

It begs an interesting question that I direct as much to tinsldr2 as you: do you have friends/family/inlaws/co-workers and you have good relations with that are liberal? I have good relations with conservative republicans from all 4 categories. Probably why I fond the above to be self evident.

There you go again. The Democratic party has such a thing as a "leadership". Barely. The left, though? Not. At. All.

Touche... I stand corrected... :D

You know perfectly well that there's a world of difference between vote fraud (stuffing ballot boxes, graveyard vote, diebolding) and votER fraud (trying to vote without being eligible to do so).

Actually, I did not make the distinction. I stand corrected.

For starters, one exists and the other doesn't.

Assumes facts not in evidence..

Not contradictory at all, given that essentially no aliens are trying to vote,

Again, assumes facts not in evidence...

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Everyone subject to the jurisdiction of a government has the right to express or withhold their consent, and to have that expression be part of a real political process that affords them the possibility of influencing government action. Anything less is tyranny.

Which doesn't change the fact that voting is a privilege.

A privilege that can be taken away under certain conditions.

This is the law..

Don't like the law?? Then work to change it..

Working to change a law is admirable..

Working to circumvent the law is nefarious... :D

Especially when doing so to further a partisan agenda...

Michale.....
110

There you go again. The Democratic party has such a thing as a "leadership". Barely. The left, though? Not. At. All.

How would you define "real connection"?

Broadly. To a first approximation, I think everyone has a right to participation at the most basic level (speech, press, and even organizing and donating within financial limits) in everyone else's political process. We're all connected. It's just plain silly to pretend that countries are in separate universes. Voting and candidacy should be restricted to those with a greater degree of connection, basically to citizens.

You might see some calls for laws to outlaw voter intimidation. But I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing.

That's because you haven't seen the fine print of the new laws. The operational definition will amount to "being registered Democratic within 5000 feet of a polling place"; the penalty will be permanent disenfranchisement without due process. That's for laws designed not to pass but to elicit opposition from the left. Laws designed to pass will only be almost as bad.

Then how come every election, the Left is screaming to the high heavens about "vote fraud"?

Shame on you. Every time I forget how low you can sink, you find a way to remind me. You know perfectly well that there's a world of difference between vote fraud (stuffing ballot boxes, graveyard vote, diebolding) and votER fraud (trying to vote without being eligible to do so). For starters, one exists and the other doesn't.

a universal mechanism that insures only American citizens can vote..

Insure with an I means enter into a contract to pay in the event of loss. Ensure with an E means to make certain that that's what happens.

Do you have a problem with the rule that only American citizens can vote??

If you don't, then it seems to me to be a little contradictory that you would have a problem with a universal mechanism that insures only American citizens can vote.

Not contradictory at all, given that essentially no aliens are trying to vote, and that the only 100% failsafe mechanism would be to let no one vote at all. Every decision mechanism has errors both ways (false positives and false negatives) unless it always says no (and thus has no false positives) or always says yes (and thus has no false negatives).

You look at voting as a right. But it is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Everyone subject to the jurisdiction of a government has the right to express or withhold their consent, and to have that expression be part of a real political process that affords them the possibility of influencing government action. Anything less is tyranny.

What's wrong with tyranny isn't only the effect on the tyrannized. It's also the effect on the tyrants, who might otherwise have been better people.

You seem to be saying that better 1 million illegal votes be cast rather than 1 legitimate voter not be allowed to vote...

Is that an accurate assessment of what you are saying?

Michale....
109

Instead the cannonball flew over the foothills surrounding Camp Parks Military Firing Reservation, before spiraling back toward Dublin like a cruise missile.

The out of control cannonball finally came to a stop inside Jasper Gill’s minivan.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/12/06/tv-experiment-goes-awry-sends-cannonball-rocketing-through-homes/

Filed under the heading of "OOOPPPSSS"

:D

Michale
108

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8940350/Nasas-Voyager-1-in-cosmic-purgatory-on-verge-of-entering-Milky-Way.html

Future history is being written...

V'ger is on course for it's destiny! :D

The creation of the Borg is at hand... :D

Michale.....
106

And yet, there are MANY Americans who don't have the right to vote. Our jails are filled with them... :D

I would agree with your statement with the addition that everyone should have the right to vote in an American election who is an American citizen..

Then the question becomes, how do we enforce that??

How do we insure that only those authorized to vote ARE voting??

Well, the only way to do that is to make sure everyone has a valid ID...

You look at voting as a right. But it is NOT a right. It is a privilege.

It is a privilege that can be taken away under certain circumstances..

One of those circumstances is being a convicted felon..

Another is not having a valid ID...

I really don't have a problem with either of those restrictions..

If you want the privilege of voting, don't commit any felonies and get yerself a state ID...

If you can't be bothered with getting an ID, then you don't want to be bothered with voting.. Many, if not ALL states have programs for Free IDs for low income people who want an ID to vote...

There is absolutely NO excuse for obtaining an ID for voters.. It's simple laziness....

That's how I look at things...

Michale
105

What I'm arguing for is that everyone should have the right to vote.

I'm not including any exemptions for wealthy people or people I disagree with. Rush Limbaugh should have the right to vote.

And it's not ok to play dirty because one side thinks the other might do it if they somehow don't do it first.

Everyone should have the right to vote. Period. Government should not be trying to deny people this right for one political party or the other. In fact, government should be encouraging people to vote.

-David

Both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of looking out for their own agenda at the expense of the American people..

Michale
104

I disagree...

I have been stinking filthy rich. The kind of rich where I could go into a bar and give a waitress a hundred dollar tip, just to see the look on her face...

I have also been dirt poor. The kind of dirt poor where I would buy soda with food stamps to pour out the soda and return the cans (at .05 cents a can) so I could have gas money to go look for work..

Even being dirt poor, if something was important enough to me, I would find a way to do it..

By opposing IDs, Democrats are simply trying to enhance their own voter turnout..

As I have said (and NO ONE has disputed) if the poor voted primarily GOP, the Left would be screaming to high heaven, demanding IDs for all voters...

You know it. I know it... The Left knows it.. :D

Michale....
103

When it does, all of the sudden, there is "no voter fraud".....

To be fair, the Right is exactly the same way...

Oh sure.. You can point to a person here or a person there who doesn't think like that..

"A person is smart. People are dumb panicky animals and you know it."
-Kay, MEN IN BLACK

By and large, though, the Left will do what they can to enhance voters who vote Dem and disenfranchise voters who vote GOP... Just as the Right will do what they can to enhance voters who vote GOP and disenfranchise voters who vote Dem.

"... nature of the beast."
-Colonel Hadley, THE FINAL OPTION

Michale....
102

You might see some calls for laws to outlaw voter intimidation. But I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing.

The Left would have gone batshit over it. They would be screaming to the high heavens about voter intimidation and "Vast Right Wing" Conspiracies!!

6. There is virtually no voter fraud.

Really??

Then how come every election, the Left is screaming to the high heavens about "vote fraud"???

Don't make me GOOGLE!! :D

Remember?? The Left screamed to high heaven about a police car parked a mile away from a voter booth...

As far as poor people not being able to afford an ID.. That's poppycock... If a poor person can't drive to a voting booth, then what does a Democrat/Liberal do??? Picks them up and drives them to a voting booth...

So, why can't a Democrat/Liberal pick up a person and drive them to get an state ID??

The problem here is that the Left wants to combat voter fraud and voter intimidation, but only to the point that it doesn't adversely affect THEIR voter turnout...

When it does, all of the sudden, there is "no voter fraud".....

Lemme ask you this....

Do you have a problem with the rule that only American citizens can vote??

If you don't, then it seems to me to be a little contradictory that you would have a problem with a universal mechanism that insures only American citizens can vote..

Michale..
101

It's about rich vs. poor. And a middle class that doesn't understand what it really means to be poor and not have access to things like a car or the Internet.

In the end, the laws may backfire on Republicans because much of their base is made up of poor white people in rural counties who are unable to vote. There are actually more poor white people in our country though common mythology has it that the majority of the poor are black.

Statistics tend to say that poor people vote Democratic, but it's hard to tell anymore. Much of the propaganda pushed by the Republican party is pushed at poor people through religion and non-traditional outlets like AM radio.

Time will tell but irregardless, I'm against it.

-David