Obama the Liar at it again...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, I don't have a problem with photo Ids and have said so in the past. However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting. I have a problem with the limiting of voting hours. It clearly is intended to limit minority voting. The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots. I believe that the law (atleast in CT) allows people to vote if they were in line when the booths close.

There is no harm in extending the # of days people can vote.

"However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting."

But why? Why is it harder, or more burdensome, for minorities to get a photo id? Is there a faster, "whites only" line at the Dept Of Motor Vehicles that nobody told me about?

"The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots"

Ah. If the polls ran out of ballots, let's say, and 50 people were in line, and they got 50 more ballots for those people, I would have no issue with that. That's not what happened. What happened was, while they were waiting for more ballots, the political operatives in Bridgeport sounded the alarm that the race was going to be close, and they rounded up more voters to go get in line to vote late. Lots of people were able to vote who were not in line when the polls closed. A topic for another day, however...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"However, everyone knows it is to limit minority voting."

But why? Why is it harder, or more burdensome, for minorities to get a photo id? Is there a faster, "whites only" line at the Dept Of Motor Vehicles that nobody told me about?

My ID is my drivers license and passport. If i didn't drive, I don't know what I would use. Many minorities live in cities and don't drive so I would suspect that has something to do with it. Why the constant big push for photo ids if there is no fraud?

"The reason the polls in BPort were allowed to stay open late is bc they ran out of ballots"

Ah. If the polls ran out of ballots, let's say, and 50 people were in line, and they got 50 more ballots for those people, I would have no issue with that. That's not what happened. What happened was, while they were waiting for more ballots, the political operatives in Bridgeport sounded the alarm that the race was going to be close, and they rounded up more voters to go get in line to vote late. Lots of people were able to vote who were not in line when the polls closed. A topic for another day, however...Do you have a link to that b/c I don't remember there being claims people were allowed to get in line after polling hours

What is the harm in extending the voting hours?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

What is the harm in extending the voting hours?

Paul, lots of seniors don't drive, lots of people in big cities don't drive. In these cases, in every state, non-drivers can get a photo id from the government, something which is not a drivers license. These id's are available to people of all colors. So again, why is this more burdensome for non-whites?

Aren't polls open from 6 AM until 8 PM? Again, how does that make it harder for minorities to vote?

I have no issue with extending hours, but it should be limited to one day.

[Pete F.]

You big city boys have no problem extending voting hours. In a small town like mine where mostly volunteers work at the polling place, they are pretty tired at the end of the day. Then we count the votes by hand, and we don't have problems with chads. After you count votes you'll think twice about writing your buddy or enemy in for some position.��

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, lots of seniors don't drive, lots of people in big cities don't drive. In these cases, in every state, non-drivers can get a photo id from the government, something which is not a drivers license. These id's are available to people of all colors. So again, why is this more burdensome for non-whites?

Aren't polls open from 6 AM until 8 PM? Again, how does that make it harder for minorities to vote?

I have no issue with extending hours, but it should be limited to one day.

Bingo. The reason for ID is to prove you are a US citizen who are the only people who can legally vote. In addition there are more modes of transportation in the city than in the suburbs to get an ID.
If a person really wants to vote, they can call either of the two parties and they
will be more than happy to get them to a place for ID.
If you are a civic minded citizen, you'll find a way to get voter ID yourself.
If you are not truly tuned into the issues and base your vote on an intelligent choice, the country is better off without your vote.

[buckman]

All the more reason to put pictures on EBT cards , unless you want to believe that will hurt the poor too.
I can't imagine any sane person arguing against this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by buckman

All the more reason to put pictures on EBT cards , unless you want to believe that will hurt the poor too.
I can't imagine any sane person arguing against this .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Couldn't agree more...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Jeff obviously has practiced this argument many times with himself. He and Hillary have more in common than meets the eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Come on Spence , the government isn't in the business of making anything easy . It's a burden to try to do anything . Your dear leader has made it his mission to make life difficult for Americans. Every department is flush with regulation and bureaucratic nonsense .
Probably the most important thing an American has to do is vote . Having to overcome the burden of acquiring an ID seems kind of insignificant in the scope of things.
You're just sounding silly now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Laws and regulations are not passed only to prevent which is "ripe" to occur. They are also passed to prevent something that "might" occur, especially if they are in regard to an important and fundamental process or right. And when abuse or trespass has occurred, it does not require that the abuse or trespass become "ripe" before prevention against it is justified. Just because murder may not be a frequent occurrence in a given community doesn't obviate the need to pass laws against it. The fundamental right to vote is too important not to have safeguards against its abuse.

Quote Spence:
But there are already safeguards against abuse and by most if not all measures they appear to be working quite well.

There's that "appear" qualification again. It "appears," however, that many don't believe they are working well enough. And those articles which point out the "relatively" few numbers of voter fraud convictions, leave out the more numerous numbers involved in voter fraud which were documented but ignored (therefor not prosecuted) for various (usually political) reasons and which did have effects or possible effects on the outcome. There is growing suspicion and mistrust of government, much of which is not unfounded, and if the majority of people approve of a safeguard against possible corruption, why do you protest so much against it?

Quote Spence:
Murder, unfortunately happens all too frequently.

It does not occur frequently in all communities. It does, however, "appear" to occur "all too frequently" in some communities which, all too often, "appear" to be poor or minority. Should we burden those communities where murder rarely occurs with laws against it? Or is the possibility of such a crime against a most fundamental right to life enough to create laws to discourage and punish it?

Quote detbuch:
Obviously, there must be some proof of validity required to vote. I don't know which proof is the least inconvenient for poor or minority voters, nor how it is less so in any other area of their lives.

Quote Spence:
Hence a registration process so that people can't vote twice. It may not be perfect but it also may not need to be perfect. It's a minimalistic solution with primarily localized oversight and effective results...a delightfully conservative approach.

There is, unfortunately, the very real possibility, especially in "get out the vote" drives in which numbers of folks who normally wouldn't bother to vote are taken to registration sites to register (with who knows what real or manufactured ID) and whose registered name can be used at election by others to vote. Hence, having a valid photo ID at election time would verify that they are the one who is registered. And if the ID was required to register, why would it be an extra burden to show it when voting?

Quote detbuch:
The misfortune, at least that portion which is due to fate, of being poor results in more difficulty in all aspects of life. There is no realistic answer on how to change that. Stretching government power to resolve it by fiat creates burdens on those that must pay for it, and the inequities which government claims not to abide. I am not exactly poor, certainly not wealthy, but have to provide ID for so many things, and have to go through irritating and inconvenient processes to re-establish ID when I lose a card, whether it be a driver's license, a social security card, a bank card, an insurance card, or any other card of which seem to spread in quantity like weeds as life becomes more bureaucratic and "advanced." Why it is so much more burdensome for the poor or minorities to suffer the same inconveniences, I don't know. It is by the vary nature of being poor that everything becomes more burdensome. But the more important something is to the life of the poor, the more, I would think, they would be willing to overcome the inconveniences posed by their poverty. And if a minority is not poor, having ID should be no more of an impediment than it is for the majority.

Quote Spence:
But if being poor did present an additional burden (it does) and whites were proportionally less poor (they are) than there would certainly be a greater burden to the minorities.

Yes, being poor makes most of life a greater burden. That greater burden is the motivating factor which drives the poor to escape poverty. If the burden is artificially removed by government, the motivation to not be poor is lessened, and for many, removed. The constant policy of the progressive state to remove burdens creates a populace which becomes satisfied with its station thus mostly stays in place, and the more natural and evolutionary process of struggling to improve dissipates. The result is most propitious for authoritarian regimes, as the people are mollified and made malleable to whatever dictates the government imposes.

This lack of confidence in people's natural ability to seek and gain improvement in a free society is a hallmark of socialism. It leads to an over-coddling of the poor, which in turn destroys the major motivation for them to improve and creates a reverse motivation in many to not seek improvement, which in turn creates greater numbers of "the poor." Which all, of course, creates a greater need for government coddling. Poverty becomes the economic standard for fiscal policy. A maintenance above some defined quantity of wealth must be provided for all, so must be equitably distributed from those with more to those with less.

And it is assumed, therefor, that it is more difficult for the poor to vote and to present competent ID. That it may be more difficult poses no legal requirement to make it easier, especially if that would lower the barriers to abuse. It also overlooks that it would be easier for many poor to vote than it is for many who are busy improving their life or maintaining a higher economic status. It simply, and erroneously, assumes that it is more difficult for the poor and poverty becomes, once again, the standard for regulation.

Is making things easier for the poor compassionate governance? In some cases it might be so. But when that becomes a standard, a constant factor in policy, is it compassion for the poor, or are the poor a tool to be used for societal transformation? And is poverty so strictly apportioned among minorities that they automatically are assumed to be victims of poverty and in the need for voting assistance? I think it would be more accurate to identify a subset of people, regardless of race, who have some specific handicap that makes it not "difficult" but overburdensome to acquire ID and make it possible for them to get photo Id, not just for voting, but for all the other things necessary in our increasingly complex society.

Quote Spence:
The Salon article I posted for Jim does a nice job of laying out the reasons why. Which comes back to my original comment...if there's not a problem, why burden ANYONE with a solution?

Government, especially overarching, socialistic government, yearly pumps out tens of thousands of pages of new regulations where there are no "problems" except for ones it newly defines, or ones that "appear" to be a problem--and mostly problems which it has created with previous laws and regulations. And it is constantly burdening We The People with solutions that make daily life and business more difficult. Anything We The People can do to make the governmental process less corruptible and more difficult for it to abuse us should be welcomed. You "appear" to have little or nothing to say about massive government intrusion in our lives, yet your all up in a twit about voter ID.

Quote detbuch:
If you're referring to the Grossman article, you are not correct. He related that the great majority of legislation discussed was liberal, not all of it.

Quote Spence:
Yes but he does lay out an over-simplified test for what "Conservative" or "Liberal" legislation is.

-spence

It is not "over" simplified. Did you want him to write a book? You can certainly tell us how it is "over" simplified. If you have time.

[buckman]

I believe there is a need for this and I believe there is a reason people are against this . Spence has already come out and said lies are fine if it's for his idea of the better good . Useless laws that don't fix anything , gun control comes to mind , are ok to liberals . They thrive on feel good legislation . All it takes is one occurrence and it becomes a crisis, and a law is legislated .
Spence ,your hypocrisy has no match buddy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I believe there is a need for this and I believe there is a reason people are against this . Spence has already come out and said lies are fine if it's for his idea of the better good . Useless laws that don't fix anything , gun control comes to mind , are ok to liberals . They thrive on feel good legislation . All it takes is one occurrence and it becomes a crisis, and a law is legislated .
Spence ,your hypocrisy has no match buddy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're comparing apples and oranges, quite simply there is indeed a serious firearm violence problem in the USA when compared to other industrialized nations.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparing apples and oranges, quite simply there is indeed a serious firearm violence problem in the USA when compared to other industrialized nations.

-spence

True.

It's also true that the problem isn't even the least bit mitigated in places that have enacted tough gun laws. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws.

I'm not a huge fan of guns in the hands of large numbers of citizens. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear.

It's also worth noting that some of those countries, like Canada, have high rates of gun ownership, yet little gun crime. That suggests that the root problem isn't the presence of guns, but a cultural lack of empathy on our part. Your side is the side peddling the bile that if human like is inconvenient, it can be snuffed out. Your side is the side that says "if it feels good do it", and your side are the ones who resort to feral anarchy when they don't get exactly what they want.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True.

It's also true that the problem isn't even the least bit mitigated in places that have enacted tough gun laws. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws.

I'm not a huge fan of guns in the hands of large numbers of citizens. But the empirical evidence could not be more clear.

Clear as mud.

Perhaps that's more indicative of the overwhelming gun culture in the US. We have by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and I believe the highest murder rate of any industrialized nation.

If anything your empirical observations in Chicago and DC may just demonstrate the need for tougher long-term federal laws.

It's also worth noting that some of those countries, like Canada, have high rates of gun ownership, yet little gun crime. That suggests that the root problem isn't the presence of guns, but a cultural lack of empathy on our part.

Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high." Perhaps they're rates of gun crime have more to do with more restrictive ownership laws.

That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms.

Wait, I though more guns was the solution?

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high."
-spence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nership/table/

From the Washington Post, gun ownership per capita for 178 countries. Canada was ranked 13th. Spence, the noted statistician, claims that being ranked in the top 8% of a list is "definitely not high."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Clear as mud.

Perhaps that's more indicative of the overwhelming gun culture in the US. We have by far the highest rate of gun ownership in the world and I believe the highest murder rate of any industrialized nation.

If anything your empirical observations in Chicago and DC may just demonstrate the need for tougher long-term federal laws.



Canada's gun ownership is pretty average compared to similar countries, it's definitely not "high." Perhaps they're rates of gun crime have more to do with more restrictive ownership laws.

That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms.

Wait, I though more guns was the solution?

-spence

"That suggests that the root problem isn't a cultural lack of empathy on our part, but simply way too many firearms."

The Washington Post data does not support your conclusion (shocker!). Compare the US (which has the highest rate of gun ownership) and Switzerland (which is ranked 3rd). The rate of gun ownership in the US is 94% higher than that of Switzerland.

If what you say is true (that the problem is the guns and not the people), then the gun homicide rate per capita would also be 94% higher in the US than Sweden. But as with almost everything you say, the facts don't back it up. The gun homicide rate in the US (3.2 per 100k) is not 94% higher than Sweden, it is 215% higher than Sweden.

The numbers show that in this country, gun homicides do not increase in proportion with guns, compared to other countries. Other countries can have the gun ownership, without having nearly the gun murder rate that we have. That pretty much means it's not primarily the presence of guns.

I could not make up a more concrete rebuttal of your theory that it's gun ownership. I wonder if you will still spout that theory, despite now knowing that it is demonstrably false?

Guns are obviously part of the problem. But any rational person knows that even if you banned all gun sales today, that does nothing to curb violence for decades, because there are tens of millions of guns out there. The only way gun control can put a meaningful dent in crime is to confiscate the guns out there, and in addition to being unconstitutional, it's not possible.

Put down the Kool Aid and think for 5 seconds.

For whatever reason, our citizenry does not respect life to the same degree as the citizens of other developed nations. Gun control laws do not get to the root of that terrible reality.

The solution from your side seems to be to attack religion and celebrate abortions and free condoms, and to mock the exact family values that might combat whatever psychosis is effecting so many of us.

I'm not sure it helps that our POTUS has rappers, who obviously promote and celebrate the gun violence lifestyle, on speed dial.

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by spence

You're comparing apples and oranges, quite simply there is indeed a serious firearm violence problem in the USA when compared to other industrialized nations.

-spence

Hey Spence
Whats the % of gun crimes committed with legal guns compared to illegal ???
According to most studies 95% crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns.
Gun control is not the problem. People are the problem.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Hey Spence

According to most studies 95% crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns.

I agree that is true.

So, how do we best keep the illegal guns out of criminals hands?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I agree that is true.

So, how do we best keep the illegal guns out of criminals hands?

Harsh jail time if you commit a crime with a firearm . Enforce the current law instead of plea bargaining them out .
Don't give them free to Mexican cartels where they will be used to kill hundreds including border agents
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

Hey Spence
Whats the % of gun crimes committed with legal guns compared to illegal ???
According to most studies 95% crimes are committed with ILLEGAL guns.
Gun control is not the problem. People are the problem.

You're 95% number doesn't tell us very much. So criminals usually use illegal guns...what a freaking revelation that is!

What's the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one anyway? If you have a gigantic surplus of legal guns wouldn't that make it a heck of a lot easier for criminals to get guns which would *instantly* make them illegal guns?

The number of guns in the US is mind boggling...over 270 million which is 6 times higher than any other nation and as many as the next 18 countries COMBINED.

It's no wonder our rate of gun homicide is #1 in the developed world.

But no, it must be all about the people.

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You're 95% number doesn't tell us very much. So criminals usually use illegal guns...what a freaking revelation that is!

What's the difference between a legal gun and an illegal one anyway? If you have a gigantic surplus of legal guns wouldn't that make it a heck of a lot easier for criminals to get guns which would *instantly* make them illegal guns?

The number of guns in the US is mind boggling...over 270 million which is 6 times higher than any other nation and as many as the next 18 countries COMBINED.

It's no wonder our rate of gun homicide is #1 in the developed world.

But no, it must be all about the people.

-spence

It would be interesting to check how many violent gun crimes are committed by repeat offenders . I'm guessing 1/2 would be a good number but I bet it's low .
I would also like to know the number committed by illegal aliens .
Something tells me you probably wouldn't have thought about that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's no wonder our rate of gun homicide is #1 in the developed world.

But no, it must be all about the people.

-spence

Spence, I posted the data to show that here in the US, gun homicide rates are not proportional to our gun ownership - our gun murder rates are much higher than what can be explained by an increase in gun ownership. In other words, the presence of guns does not explain our gun homicide rate. The only plausible alternative explanation is the culture. Kudos to the mouthpieces on your side who have been wildly successful at de-valuing life, as well as mocking religion and family values. Also liberal heroes in Hollywood exposing our kids to vile filth. Nah, that can't have anything to do with it.

You absolutely know that you are posting things that are contradicted by the data, yet you continue to spout this because you want it to be true. Incredible.

[buckman]

You clearly have never applied for fire arm permit Spence .
Until you do ,you don't have a right calling anything anybody would have to do to get an ID ,a burden.
And I'll argue that the ID will prevent voter fraud whereas the gun permits have never been proved to slow gun violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by buckman

You clearly have never applied for fire arm permit Spence .
Until you do ,you don't have a right calling anything anybody would have to do to get an ID ,a burden.
And I'll argue that the ID will prevent voter fraud whereas the gun permits have never been proved to slow gun violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try getting a Captains license...talk about a burden!! A LTC is nothing compared to a Captains License...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

You clearly have never applied for fire arm permit Spence .
Until you do ,you don't have a right calling anything anybody would have to do to get an ID ,a burden.
And I'll argue that the ID will prevent voter fraud whereas the gun permits have never been proved to slow gun violence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ahhh the old you don't have any right nonsense.

Here's what you're not getting. If you're really hellbent on rigging the vote, the logistics of trying to do it via the individual is going to be nearly impossible...that's the only thing ID would stop.

And that's why it doesn't happen.

-spence

[Raven]

the thread topic implies that Barry lies on occasion

so that's laughable considering he's a compulsive
schizophrenic pathological liar 100% of the time

[Pete F.]

You guys sound like the Rush and Bernie show. They actually are not on the same show but both Rush Limbaugh and Bernie Sanders find extreme examples that of course any halfwit would find unacceptable. The evil illegal immigrants, maybe you should talk to the smart ones they are here for a self defined amount of time, making multiple times what they could at home and then getting out and going home to live well the rest of their lives. They are too conservative to want to pay for everyone else. We have more people in prisons than anyone else in the world, its not getting better, we need to fix it. The criminals in charge have now fixed our healthcare system, did you know that now if you get health insurance and quit paying, that after three months they cancel your health insurance. The surprising part is that the insurance company gets all the money it paid out back, how come it doesn't work like that for my business.
Notice how your doctor now spends more time looking at his computer than you, the bean counters have decided that it is in your better interest to have all procedures have a 5 digit code so they can better determine our health care needs. It was a 3 digit code but now they need to know if it is the first visit, second or final. Most doctors used to say try this, if it doesn't work come back and see me.

[Pete F.]

Do you think that it is just because we can have firearms?http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._homicide_rate
We should have the highest intentional homicide rate then, shouldn't we?