T1B

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:34 am**

Huey Newton and the Lous were pretty good back in the 80's.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:51 am**

you realize that there are plenty of layabout fukking bums out there who just might consider putting down the remote or ripple bottle long enough to vote so long as they have to do nothing other than show up.

Exactly. Those are the proud voters who Kept Hope Alive.

Am I reading this thread correctly? You guys really think that Obama was voted in unfairly, thanks to voter fraud?

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:53 am**

PSUFAN wrote:Am I reading this thread correctly? You guys really think that Obama was voted in unfairly, thanks to voter fraud?

Not me. I won't draw that conclusion until the HBO special comes out.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:32 am**

PSUFAN wrote: Am I reading this thread correctly? You guys really think that Obama was voted in unfairly, thanks to voter fraud?

Of course not.

I'm just wondering what your objection is to voters having to supply proof of their identity. Is this like a knee jerk reaction "anything that conservatives are for, I must be against"?

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:01 am**

How have you deduced that I'm against a National ID card, simpleton?

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 3:37 am**

What I've deduced is that for the most part, you hold your opinion in reserve, trying to play both sides of the fence.

At such times when you do actually have a take, which isn't often, it comes across like Michael Moore on valium.

In other words, you're a huge twat.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 1:23 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
warren wrote:(fukk your run-on sentence smack in advance)
We'll let it slide since you jammed a handful of commas in there this time.

Nice job, btw, handing terry his ass. I am sure he is thumbing through his law library at this moment coming up with another reason to continue voter fraud.

Hey terry, what's your 2 cents worth on the secret ballot thing concerning unions? Are you gonna try to tell us that it doesn't limit secret ballots, as some union shills are saying?

Thanks smack and you can add to terry's 14th ammendmant circle talk because 12 states already have id requirements and the Supreme Court just overturned a federal district court's ruling that it was unconstitutional in Illinois. So make it thirteen with Texas hopefully falling in line soon.

I am waiting with baited breath on his defense of the cardcheck policy.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:09 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:In New York, you can get a driver's license or you can get a non-driver ID. You can't get both.

If the non-driver ID becomes a freebie, then you're violating a different portion of the Constitution (Amendments V and XIV), unless you also make the drivers' licenses free. That'll be the day.

How so?

Providing the option of a free ID covers the poll tax arguement. Completely. The fact that they still charge for a license has absolutely nothing to do with it. They are not charging for a license to vote. They are charging for a license to drive. Last I checked, the constitution didn't cover driving a motor vehicle as a right.

I think I see the arguement you are trying to make, but, it's way out there in TiVO territory.

Just admit it terry, you are against it because it will result in fewer dems being elected.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:45 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:In New York, you can get a driver's license or you can get a non-driver ID. You can't get both.

If the non-driver ID becomes a freebie, then you're violating a different portion of the Constitution (Amendments V and XIV), unless you also make the drivers' licenses free. That'll be the day.
How so?

Providing the option of a free ID covers the poll tax arguement. Completely. The fact that they still charge for a license has absolutely nothing to do with it. They are not charging for a license to vote. They are charging for a license to drive. Last I checked, the constitution didn't cover driving a motor vehicle as a right.

No, driving a motor vehicle is not a Constitutional right. But courts have ruled consistently that there is both a liberty interest and a property interest in the ability to apply for a drivers' license. And those interests are protected by the Constitution.

There wouldn't be an issue if either: (a) drivers' licenses and non-driver ID's were not mutually exclusive; or (b) there was no fee charged for a driver's license. But neither of those standards is met.

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:28 pm**

R-Jack wrote:
warren wrote: you are asked for a picture ID to ... get into a gay bar
Uh, yeah. Thanks for informing us of that. Great research.

Fag

There was a point made about the sensibility of implementing policy that would require picture ID to combat voter fraud. And this is what you come up with.

You're just the same as every other idiot tool on here that can not think for themselves so you take refuge in calling out a sophomoric insult to the person I was quoting.

Great retort. Fag

Posted: **Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:35 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
smackaholic wrote:And Terry's weak assarguement is easily shot out of the water with the free voter ID thing.
Not in New York it isn't.

In New York, you can get a driver's license or you can get a non-driver ID. You can't get both.

If the non-driver ID becomes a freebie, then you're violating a different portion of the Constitution (Amendments V and XIV), unless you also make the drivers' licenses free. That'll be the day.

Interesting, btw, that some people in here are considering the Constitution a "technicality" or "loophole." Last time I checked, by definition it's the supreme law of the land.

I can't believe a freaking liberal is complaing about anyone taking the constitution litely. Who said anything about loopholes anyway?

Also, in your infinite wisdom is there no constitutional method to force a person to prove that they are who they are at the polls?

The Supreme Court of the United States of America says your wrong in Illinois and 12 other States.

I'm truly troubled by who to back on this one Scolia or Terry in Crankchester. Great advertising counselor.

Fukking scheister probably is billing his hapless, elderly clients while he spews his bullshit on here and watches porn.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:28 am**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
No, driving a motor vehicle is not a Constitutional right. But courts have ruled consistently that there is both a liberty interest and a property interest in the ability to apply for a drivers' license. And those interests are protected by the Constitution.

So, wtf are you argueing? Are you saying that charging for a license is unconstitutional? If so, wtf does that have to do with voter ID.

It's really simple, terry. If you are against voter ID because you site that it is unconstitutional to make one pay to vote, free voter IDs answer that question. End of story. The state saying that they will not go through the expense of issuing you the card if you already have a license, does not change a fukking thing. It is just plain common sense. There is a fee for the license, but, it's got shit to do with the license being necessary to vote. It isn't. It's necessary to drive. Stating that it will suffice in place of a voter ID, in no way implies that one has to pay to vote.

Go ahead and continue to play legal gymnastics if you choose, but, remember, it is that type of bullshit that makes a good number of normal people want to line you and your ilk up against a wall and blow your brains out.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:07 am**

Is it just me, or is the ballot print kinda ... small?

Couldn't read it.
Had to buy glasses the next year.
That's a fee.

Lawsuit is pending.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 1:17 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
No, driving a motor vehicle is not a Constitutional right. But courts have ruled consistently that there is both a liberty interest and a property interest in the ability to apply for a drivers' license. And those interests are protected by the Constitution.

So, wtf are you argueing? Are you saying that charging for a license is unconstitutional? If so, wtf does that have to do with voter ID.

It's really simple, terry. If you are against voter ID because you site that it is unconstitutional to make one pay to vote, free voter IDs answer that question. End of story. The state saying that they will not go through the expense of issuing you the card if you already have a license, does not change a fukking thing. It is just plain common sense. There is a fee for the license, but, it's got shit to do with the license being necessary to vote. It isn't. It's necessary to drive. Stating that it will suffice in place of a voter ID, in no way implies that one has to pay to vote.

Go ahead and continue to play legal gymnastics if you choose, but, remember, it is that type of bullshit that makes a good number of normal people want to line you and your ilk up against a wall and blow your brains out.

Remember that you're dealing with liberals here. They will never allow common sense, logic or honesty get in the way of repeating their message, ad nauseum, until Katy Couric repeats it and then it's reality.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 3:34 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Terry in Crapchester wrote:
No, driving a motor vehicle is not a Constitutional right. But courts have ruled consistently that there is both a liberty interest and a property interest in the ability to apply for a drivers' license. And those interests are protected by the Constitution.

So, wtf are you argueing? Are you saying that charging for a license is unconstitutional?

No. What I'm arguing is that it's unconstitutional to charge for a license if a voter has to show that license in order to vote.

It's really simple, terry. If you are against voter ID because you site that it is unconstitutional to make one pay to vote, free voter IDs answer that question. End of story. The state saying that they will not go through the expense of issuing you the card if you already have a license, does not change a fukking thing.

Ever hear of the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection? It most certainly does.

Go ahead and continue to play legal gymnastics if you choose, but, remember, it is that type of bullshit that makes a good number of normal people want to line you and your ilk up against a wall and blow your brains out.

Tell me, why do those "normal" people so despise the Constitution?

poptart wrote:Is it just me, or is the ballot print kinda ... small?

Couldn't read it.
Had to buy glasses the next year.
That's a fee.

Lawsuit is pending.

Did you pay your fee for the glasses to the government? Didn't think so. Therein lies the difference.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:47 pm**

What if the polls are not within walking distance?

I gotta goes an' buy me a license, buy me a car (an some rims), buy me some insurance, well, nahh skip da insurance, buy me some gas.

An the constitution say I gots to vote fo' free?

nigga, please.

When you white devils gonna quit holdin' a brotha down?

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:20 pm**

Left Seater wrote:Photo ID for voting?

Voting is a local issue. If your poll worker can not verify who you are maybe they should not be a poll worker.

Carry on you nazi fuckhole.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:14 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Photo ID for voting?
Voting is a local issue. If your poll worker can not verify who you are maybe they should not be a poll worker.

Carry on you nazi fuckhole.

I'm confused here, lil' fella.

Just how does a poll worker verify? Does he have some sort of magical super power? Should he personally know each voter?

I think you would agree that none of these can be counted on. So, I guess that leaves photo ID.

Nice to have you on the right side for a change.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:41 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:Voting is a local issue. If your poll worker can not verify who you are maybe they should not be a poll worker.

Definitely one of the stupidest things ever posted here, which is sayin' somethin'.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:54 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Voting is a local issue. If your poll worker can not verify who you are maybe they should not be a poll worker.
Definitely one of the stupidest things ever posted here, which is sayin' somethin'.

He'll top it before the day's out.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:27 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
Moving Sale wrote:Voting is a local issue. If your poll worker can not verify who you are maybe they should not be a poll worker.
Definitely one of the stupidest things ever posted here, which is sayin' somethin'.

So it's what? A national issue? Ever been a poll worker in a functioning area? I thought not.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:30 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Just how does a poll worker verify?

That you are too stupid to know the answer to this is telling.

Does he have some sort of magical super power?

Magic as in beyond your feeble grasp? Yes

Should he personally know each voter?

False dichotomy much?

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:15 pm**

All right, smart ass. Tell us how you get verification without the ID.

Posted: **Thu Mar 12, 2009 10:17 pm**

smackaholic wrote:All right, smart ass. Tell us how you get verification without the ID.

I'm not here to make you smarter. I'm here to tell you how stupid you are.

BTW- You're stupid.

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:27 am**

Moving Sale wrote:Nothing.

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:31 am**

Wait. I think I have it now.

The gubmint can get thousands of wonder woman's magic lassos made and pass them out to all the polling places. Then, all they gotta do is lasso every voter, especially the black ones and ask, have you voted yet today? or "are you (fill in name).

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:56 am**

The truth lasso never fails. "H4ever....did you, as a teen, ever rub one out after an episode of Wonder Woman?"

"No" lasso tightens "Aaargh!"

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:03 pm**

Big deal, I walked into the local DMV and it was like a Twilight show where I was transported to Tijuana. They'll give a photo ID to a dead person. Just ask Y2K.

Posted: **Fri Mar 13, 2009 5:47 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Photo ID for voting?
Voting is a local issue. If your poll worker can not verify who you are maybe they should not be a poll worker.

Voting is a local issue. That is why Texans will now have to show photo ID to vote in future elections. Bill was voted thru committee with the help of some Dems. Passage is expected easily in both houses. Gov will sign when it reaches his desk.

Terry, guess you can get your lawsuit ready. Might as well start with Indiana since they have the countries most restrictive photo ID rules.

Moving sale, please tell me how a PA poll worker is supposed to verify someone when all they have to check against is a name and an address? Information a 6 year old can get from a phone book.

T1B

How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...

Re: How can you dems be against...