Yes. You? Because you made the following statement, which clearly is against our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and our founding principles:

Kinda dictator-like. Your fellow citizens don't have to meet your requirements to be able to vote. They only have to be citizens of this country. You - or I - may hate what they believe, or how they vote. Too bad. We all get to vote.

Where did I say this level of proof was not OK?

Which amendment?

You don't currently need a photo voter ID to vote in Colorado. Do you think that's fine as current, or do you think that the Colorado voting law should be changed so that a photo voter ID must be required?

I didn't say amendment. Keep up.

Nobody told me to repeat sh!t Riot I worked all day and this is the only site I've visited. Unlike you my job doesn't involve surfing the web. You are the one who repeats the same Progressive crap that dominates the media. There is nothing wrong with making sure people are citizens. Ooooops I forgot our Prez doesn't have a birth certificate. I live in N.Y. I had to show an I.D. Please look up the regs for me you are more fluent with the Internet than I am. If there is a pie chart so much the better.

And also to prevent people like you from deciding what I choose to defend myself, loved ones, and property with. How you can be a Constitutional Scholar on some subjects but completely lost on others is beyond me. I guess you see what you want to see.

So you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion of Voter ID rights, other than to reiterate that you are a birther?

BTW: I own my own successful business, I earn six figures, and, being a massive job creator, I have the luxury of a lot of time off. The American Dream - it's awesome ;)

You don't have the right to defend your loved ones with a bazooka or tank. Yeah - the majority rest of us, in this democratic society, are good with that. You, the minority, lose on that one.

Yes, this is a society, where we all live together, and thus all our opinions count. Equally. That's why we vote on things. Like you don't get a bazooka or a tank. Majority rules. Too bad on that one.

:zz: I have made no pretense to being any Consitutional scholar. I leave that up to our judicial branch. Like reading the decisions where multiple judges have thrown out restrictive ALEC-GOP Voter ID laws as they unfairly discriminate against some minorities or are poll taxes.

First I'm a racist now I'm a birther. What's next? I'm glad you are successful. You do realize you didn't build that business right?

You don't believe much in keeping to the truth, either, do you?

I never said you were a racist.

You revealed yourself as a birther when you said this: "Ooooops I forgot our Prez doesn't have a birth certificate." (Hint: that's the definition of "A Birther")

The President never said, "You didn't build" referring to anyone's business. He said, "You didn't build that" referring to infrastructure and roads that enable businesses to thrive. In fact, Mitt Romney has said the exact same thing. Would you like to see video of it?

Not to bait you at all, but just a question:

Why would the racial background or age matter when analyzing those who did not obtain official ID for themselves?

It's insane that the Justice Department would seek to not enforce laws for ID's - though your graph likely points to their motivation.

Would we do the same for other action/inaction within our society, and then shape the laws accordingly?

For instance, statistics have shown that most drunk drivers are young people in their late teens. But if you are hit by a vehicle driven by a drunk driver, the demographic of the driver is unimportant. So they passed laws where a measurable quantity (blood alcohol level) can be the key evidence of whether a driver is intoxicated. They pull over ANYBODY driving erratically. The stats are irrelevant. As these people grow up, they may still drunk drive, changing the stats, especially if the new young people do not abuse alcohol to the same degree.

It is a shame that in the past, literacy tests have been used as a mechanism for disenfranchisement. That should never have happened. It's absurd, and those people warping that policy should have been prosecuted.

However, there is a legitimate role for tests IF the ability to read and understand the language of the ballot is in question. I don't know Russian for example. I don't even know the whole Cyrillic alphabet, so where the letters differ from our Roman alphabet, I can't read the word, let alone know what it means in Russian. Giving me a ballot in Russian is pointless. If I lived in Russia and it was time to vote I would not be shocked to have to pass a test to see if I can read the ballot (or so they can tell me how to spell Putin in Cyrillic letters) :rolleyes:

Giving someone a ballot they cannot read and interpreting the selection as meaningful is an intellectual absurdity. Obviously, places where Spanish is universal and they have the ballot in Spanish this is not an issue. But ballots are printed and therefore need to be read in order to convey the necessary information.

felons lose their right to vote, but that's the only group i know of that is disenfranchised-by their own actions tho.
and i do think that requiring id is common sense, but voter registration also needs to be fixed. people who live near a state line have been registered in multiple areas, and have voted multiple times from what i've read.
voter rolls shouldn't just be purged of non-voters, but states should cross reference. but id would also be a red flag in that instance. i know of a guy who lives on property straddling the ark/la border. he has all ark id, tags,works in ark, etc. but his 911 address is in la. so, yeah, he could be registered to vote twice. how many out there like that? or they move, vote absentee in home state, in person here?

yeah, the constitution is all fine and dandy, til things like ndaa come along. or shooting citizens overseas without due process. the ag even tried to justfiy the latter.
the bible, and the constitution. both used by anyone in any argument to justify their point.

Huh, you keep asserting that the framers made sure that all votes counted the same when the exact opposite is true.
I assumed you must have read this somewhere so I was curious if you interpreted the Bill of Rights differently than I did.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-if-you-h...nt-build-that/

You sure about that? If you aren't insulted by this then you are not listening.

Government research didn't create the internet either. "So that business could make money"

Pretty sad state of affairs where you are a racist if you feel that people should have an ID to vote.
If you're not smart enough to figure out how to get an ID should you really be voting, or should I say blindly voting for Obama jut because he's black?

Calling someone who thinks ID is necessary to vote a racist is a tactic. The Democrats don't actually believe that. But if it gets you to shut up, then the tactic is successful.

The Democrats want (or need) the multiplicative factor of voter fraud through repeated voting - an illegal practice. This practice is easily stopped through the use of required ID and logging of poll attendance. Therefore, they will take the intellectually indefensible and ludicrous position of guaranteeing the continuation of this crime by not requiring ID and actively fighting states who are bold enough to enact their own ID requirements.

And, for the record, preferring someone because of their race is equally racist to the case of excluding someone because of their race.

yeah, originally all citizens didn't have the right to vote. the framers didn't think everyone should be able to.
explains why there had to be amendments made to the constitution. and those amendments came looong after the framers had all shuffled off this mortal coil.


an excerpt from an article i found:

Some Americans hoped the Constitution would clarify, unify, and perhaps expand voting rights nationally. It did not. Hayden wrote: "Under the constitution, then, the breadth of the right to vote for both state and national elections was fixed by state law. And at the time of ratification, this meant that many people—including most women, African Americans, Native Americans and propertyless white men—could not vote."

By not addressing the suffrage issue more broadly, the Constitution's authors fostered a long-running battle over voting rights. This struggle lasted well into the twentieth century, forming a focal point for the civil rights and women's rights movements.

http://www.history.org/foundation/jo.../elections.cfm

it's a ridiculous claim by people who don't like opposition. imo, it should be considered the equivalent to Godwin's law.

Coming from the King of using "Tactics" when discussing A Womens right to choose. However on this topic we concur. No ID no vote, really simple.

The electoral college system was conceived because the founders were afraid to give the full power of selection to the general public.
A correct assumption was made that people are suckers and could easily be fooled into electing someone completely unqualified.

It is against United States law to discriminate against any segment of our population when it comes to voting rights.

i think they came up with the EC as a way for states to choose the executive, rather than by popular vote. that way, a certain segment couldn't hold sway ( in theory) over the rest of the country. after all, the fed is supposed to be the umbrella under which the states work. yeah, that part of the experiment has lately turned into an abysmal failure.

But we don't live by the 1700's version, do we? Our laws and constitutional amendments say all our citizens have the franchise to vote. Right? ALL our citizens.

Who is telling them they can't vote? Or is this your way of twisting the facts again to support your senseless, baseless, opinion?

Actually they give the reasons you cannot tell someone that they cannot vote. Age, race, sex etc.
Does say you need to be a citizen, proof of citizenship is the key.
How do you prove it without a verifiable form of identification?

LOL - you're funny.

Who is telling people they can't vote? Restrictive ALEC-GOP Voter ID laws that discriminate unfairly against certain segments of the population.

My "senseless, baseless" opinion isn't opinion, it is merely repeating what our judges and courts have found about these voter ID laws to date, as they have thrown them out.

It appears you should be directing your ire towards judges and our judicial system for standing up for the rights of your fellow American citizens.

you don't prove it. you take voters at their word. i mean, who would lie? :D

:zz: Look at your states current requirements to register to vote. Why do you want to eliminate some of those as invalid, making it more difficult for some to vote?

i did a search, as i thought others besides felons were disenfranchised, and found this:

Several states deny voting rights for life to anyone convicted of a felony. Children of American families living abroad often cannot vote when they come of voting age. American citizens living in Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands can be drafted into the military but are unable to vote for their commander in chief. Congress has sweeping power to govern the District of Columbia, yet more than a half million citizens living in the District have no voting representation in Congress.

Some are a bit of a stretch to prove that you are a citizen, even you would agree with that no?
Or that they prove you are in fact that person?

lol, exactly. Not that it is right, but werent only male, white, land owners allowed to vote by our founding father's standards?

and then of course black people were only counted as 3/5 of a vote.

and women never voted until 1920. Poor people could NOT even vote in the 1960's until the poll tax was removed!!

Even in 2012... American citizens who have committed a felony are not allowed to vote.


now none of that stuff above is okay (except maybe not allowing felons).

this statement is false. Felons cannot vote. in 12 states, even felons who have completed their sentence and their probation and are "free" men.. they cannot vote.

blacks weren't counted as 3/5 of a vote.
originally, slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person in deciding population of a state. it was something the southern states forced thru, or else they wouldn't ratify the constitution, as that was the only way to keep an even keel in the house of representatives. they knew that northern populations were much higher, which would put them in a position of less say in congress. and of course that would affect the number of electoral votes as well.

The facts are that states determine their current requirements to register to vote. Our country at the federal level prohibits discrimination against any group of American citizens, or poll taxes, in voting.


Under the current system, voter fraud incidence is 0.0002 to 0.0004% of votes. That is several hundred votes in a national election. Voter fraud is virtually non-existent

Additionally, most of those cases of voter fraud could not be eliminated by a stricter photo ID requirement (felons voting when they should not, etc).

Thus requiring stricter requirements to vote has zero basis in need.

Implementing stricter requirements to vote will measurably disinfranchise up to 5 million valid, currently voting American citizens, and take their right to vote away, as determined by our judicial system, who is overturning restrictive Voter ID laws.

showing an ID is NOT discrimination, unless you just like to play the race card.

Yes, we all know felons cannot vote, a thinking person following the discussion would not assume I meant differently without having to spell it out in every single post.

note my post above, it's not just felons.

i don't think a civics test should be administered.
i do think registrations need work, and that a photo id should be required. else how do you know that freddy isn't going to vote a second time as uncle frank, cause he knows uncle frank can't be bothered?
what about if you moved? or changed licenses? as i said above, there have been people who moved, and they vote twice. it's not fiction, it happens!

i know that many have said, ad nauseum, that there is no fraud (which is untrue) or very little. even very little fraud should be unacceptable. it's one of our most basic rights as citizens-but no one should be allowed to vote fraudulently.

thats correct.. my bad

it was just male property owners.. people who had a financial interest in where the country was heading.

not that is is morally correct, but I understand where they were coming from, and its a big reason why I believe in term limits for Congress today.