#26
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:21am
"Racism is different things to different people."
ARE YOU KIDDING?
ARE YOU KIDDING?
There Goes The Voting Rights Act of 1965 — Page 2
#27
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:23am
"Racism is different things to different people."
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Which is exactly why this provision was struck down today. It shouldn't be "different things to different people."
So rewrite the provision. So says the SCOTUS.
ARE YOU KIDDING?
Which is exactly why this provision was struck down today. It shouldn't be "different things to different people."
So rewrite the provision. So says the SCOTUS.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#28
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:25am
Caution: the liberal in me wants to play Devils Advocate here.
I do not agree with Goth on any political issue but, from more of a practical standpoint and not political, I feel requiring valid identification is fair and reasonable. IDs are required for many other earned "rights" (such as the ability to legally drink, the ability to operate a vehicle, etc.). Why is voting any different? Putting the politics aside for the moment...
I do not agree with Goth on any political issue but, from more of a practical standpoint and not political, I feel requiring valid identification is fair and reasonable. IDs are required for many other earned "rights" (such as the ability to legally drink, the ability to operate a vehicle, etc.). Why is voting any different? Putting the politics aside for the moment...
Updated On: 6/25/13 at 11:25 AM
#29
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:27am
"Goth, you're spinning out of control again with bizarre tangents. I'm outta here. Thanks for trying to explain initially, but I'm sorry you felt the need to piggyback your entire political agenda onto it."
It's a shame that you are like the rest and can't have an intelligent discussion. There are no bizarre tangents in what I've said.
It's a shame that you are like the rest and can't have an intelligent discussion. There are no bizarre tangents in what I've said.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#30
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:31am
The Department of Justice website has an overview of the Voting Rights Act, which includes links to pages with further information about difference sections.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
The Voting Rights Act of 1965
When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain.
-Kad
#31
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:40am
"I do not agree with Goth on any political issue but, from more of a practical standpoint and not political, I feel requiring valid identification is fair and reasonable. IDs are required for many other earned "rights" (such as the ability to legally drink, the ability to operate a vehicle, etc.). Why is voting any different? Putting the politics aside for the moment..."
Because voting is not the same as drinking or driving. They aren't rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Not everyone is allowed to drink or drive, but EVERYONE who is of age and not a felon is allowed to vote. Everyone. That's the difference here.
Because voting is not the same as drinking or driving. They aren't rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Not everyone is allowed to drink or drive, but EVERYONE who is of age and not a felon is allowed to vote. Everyone. That's the difference here.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#32
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:43am
OK. Right. That makes perfect sense. But let's clarify.. Every American Citizen is. Not every single individual. Big difference. So how do we go about properly identifying each voter without some kind of ID? (again, devil's advocate)
#33
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:46am
Voters are already required to register.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#34
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:47am
I'm sorry, Besty. I meant at the polls. I realize I'm venturing down a dark and messy path here. Blame Goth. 
#35
Posted: 6/25/13 at 11:52am
"Blame Goth."
Don't blame me. Best12Bars asked for Congress to pass fair voting legislation. I think being able to identify that you have the right to vote should be part of that legislation.
Don't blame me. Best12Bars asked for Congress to pass fair voting legislation. I think being able to identify that you have the right to vote should be part of that legislation.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#36
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:06pm
Because it simply isn't necessary to have voters present a photo ID. Advocates of these laws state that a photo ID is necessary in order to combat in-person voter fraud, but statistically I think there have been something like 7 proven cases of that over the past 10 years. So, if someone is registered, there is no reason to further identify these voters except to make it more difficult to vote, which is the real goal of these laws in the first place.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
#37
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:17pm
On the subject of voter fraud (which I don't think is really an issue), perhaps local governments could do their part by actually purging voter records when someone dies. My grandfather died in 1998 and a sample ballot was sent with his name up until, I believe, the 2008 Presidential Election. That's every local, state and federal election for ten years.
When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain.
-Kad
#38
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:29pm
We have voting IDs here in Puerto Rico, you need to present them in order to cast your vote and the card is the card is also considered a valid form of ID just like a driver's license.
#39
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:34pm
"On the subject of voter fraud (which I don't think is really an issue)"
I don't know how old you are, but everytime there is a Republican President the liberals are screaming voter fraud. The last time they were all screaming that the fraud was in the voting machines. That all stopped when Obama was elected, but when a Republican returns to power, they'll start screaming again.
I don't know how old you are, but everytime there is a Republican President the liberals are screaming voter fraud. The last time they were all screaming that the fraud was in the voting machines. That all stopped when Obama was elected, but when a Republican returns to power, they'll start screaming again.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#40
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:37pm
In other words, Goth, you're saying that only liberals worry about voter fraud--that it is, essentially, a non-issue?
#41
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:42pm
I realize you're stuck, so I'll answer for you. You're using the phrase "voter fraud" to mean two different things.
Liberals worry that people will be disenfranchised; that their votes will not be counted. Conservatives worry that some people--read, "minorities"--will vote fraudulently, thereby favoring a liberal candidate.
Liberals worry that people will be disenfranchised; that their votes will not be counted. Conservatives worry that some people--read, "minorities"--will vote fraudulently, thereby favoring a liberal candidate.
#42
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:43pm
"In other words, Goth, you're saying that only liberals worry about voter fraud--that it is, essentially, a non-issue?"
Reginald, your problem is that you try to inject stuff into what people say when there's nothing there to make your case. You and several others create confusion where there is none.
Reginald, your problem is that you try to inject stuff into what people say when there's nothing there to make your case. You and several others create confusion where there is none.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#43
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:46pm
Givesmevoice said she thinks voter fraud is a nonissue. You responded that liberals scream whenever a Republican is elected. Is that not correct?
I took that to mean that you thought the screaming was for no reason. What did you mean?
I may just be stupid, but I was genuinely confused by your statement. And I wasn't making a case; you were. I just don't know what it was.
I took that to mean that you thought the screaming was for no reason. What did you mean?
I may just be stupid, but I was genuinely confused by your statement. And I wasn't making a case; you were. I just don't know what it was.
Updated On: 6/25/13 at 12:46 PM
#44
Posted: 6/25/13 at 12:58pm
Goth, I just said that I clearly misunderstood your point. Others may have as well. Why don't you tell us what it was?
#45
Posted: 6/25/13 at 1:13pm
Reginald, your words were "I realize you're stuck, so I'll answer for you."
You've already decided what my position is to be and you (and several others) have closed off any real debate. You're not interested in debating but just forcing everyone to think like you think.
You've already decided what my position is to be and you (and several others) have closed off any real debate. You're not interested in debating but just forcing everyone to think like you think.
If anyone ever tells you that you put too much Parmesan cheese on your pasta, stop talking to them. You don't need that kind of negativity in your life.
#46
Posted: 6/25/13 at 1:20pm
I shouldn't have said that. Please accept my apology.
And in that spirit, why don't you tell us what your point was before I derailed the conversation?
And in that spirit, why don't you tell us what your point was before I derailed the conversation?
#47
Posted: 6/25/13 at 1:47pm
(trying to very gently get back on track) SCOTUS is responding to a very specific question. Under the 1964 law, certain geographic areas could not change their voting laws without the approval of the federal government, based upon a demonstrated history of racially biased local voting requirements. As I understand it, the opinion today eliminated the requirement of federal oversight. If any local government attempts to pass voting laws with the intent or the effect of racial bias, any individual can sue to have the law overturned. No one's rights are being taken away here - it is merely saying that the racial issues identified 50 years ago no longer require federal intervention. Should Congress desire to have federal intervention, they need only reinstate the prior provisions supported by evidence that the abuse complained of (justifiably) in the early 1960's still exists. The 1964 law contained provisions that should the abuse be shown to end, so would the provisions.
#48
Posted: 6/25/13 at 1:49pm
I don't know how old you are, but everytime there is a Republican President the liberals are screaming voter fraud. The last time they were all screaming that the fraud was in the voting machines. That all stopped when Obama was elected, but when a Republican returns to power, they'll start screaming again.
"The last time" being 2000, when there was clearly something wrong with the design of the ballots being used in Florida? I didn't know anyone was screaming voter fraud, I thought they were complaining that the ballots were poorly designed and difficult for voters to interpret. But I'm not as old as you, so clearly I don't know any better.
"The last time" being 2000, when there was clearly something wrong with the design of the ballots being used in Florida? I didn't know anyone was screaming voter fraud, I thought they were complaining that the ballots were poorly designed and difficult for voters to interpret. But I'm not as old as you, so clearly I don't know any better.
When I see the phrase "the ____ estate", I imagine a vast mansion in the country full of monocled men and high-collared women receiving letters about productions across the country and doing spit-takes at whatever they contain.
-Kad
#49
Posted: 6/25/13 at 1:53pm
This thread is a very interesting read with some very good information I wasn't even aware of from board members that *are* capable of having an intelligent conversation.
Updated On: 6/25/13 at 01:53 PM
#50
Posted: 6/25/13 at 2:20pm
Tickets From $73
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $89
Tickets From $65