New Hampshire GOP Speaker Discourages Students From Voting Because They’ll Vote ‘Liberal’

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Ever notice that any time there is a problem with voting, like remembering where to vote, how to vote, following simple procedures, showing some proof that you are who you say you are, and a multitude of other items, that it is always Democrats who are 'disinfranchised'.

Is "disinfranchised" becoming another definition of "stupid". So it seems.

"gimme my Obama Money". That says it all.

Or old people in Florida

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Wicket

There's an interesting case out in California. A gentleman, who was in his eighties, tried to get a photo ID. The State of California denied him a photo ID because he couldn't produce his Social Security card, which he had lost some time ago. When he tried to get a replacement Social Security card, he was turned down because he couldn't produce a photo ID. Sounds like big government at work for me!

catch 22 at work

[WTF]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Personally, I think 18 is too young to vote. If young people are too young to drink responsibly, then they are too young to vote. They’ve really not done enough living. It’s easy to be idealistic when you are safely tucked away in school while your parents or you trust fund is footing the bill. It’s another thing entirely to be out looking for a job you cannot get or working and paying bills. Responsibilities tend to change one’s point of view.



.

Our army has folks fighting in wars at 18...now you might say that is to young but if they can fight in a war they should be old enough to vote.

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

That isn't too surprising. The mantra of the left for decades has been that the Soviets weren't "real" communists, but that someday "they'd" get it right. Animal Farm was written by a communist as an indictment of the corrupt Soviet Union, of course what it proved was that the concept of communism is, corrupt.

And our system is not corrupt? Don't get me wrong, I think our system was better than theirs but it is far far cry from utopia. The older I get, the more corrupt it seems! Really if you are on the wrong side of any government system it is a hard ride to get ahead.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Wicket

There's an interesting case out in California. A gentleman, who was in his eighties, tried to get a photo ID. The State of California denied him a photo ID because he couldn't produce his Social Security card, which he had lost some time ago. When he tried to get a replacement Social Security card, he was turned down because he couldn't produce a photo ID. Sounds like big government at work for me!

Happens often, happened to me once when my wallet was stolen. It takes a few days, but it's pretty simple, fill out a form, present your birth certificate (an official one by the way) and apply for a new SS card.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Wicket

There's an interesting case out in California. A gentleman, who was in his eighties, tried to get a photo ID. The State of California denied him a photo ID because he couldn't produce his Social Security card, which he had lost some time ago. When he tried to get a replacement Social Security card, he was turned down because he couldn't produce a photo ID. Sounds like big government at work for me!

That is exactly correct. People with money or education take the picture ID for granted.

I lost my license because of to many tickets and it was hell getting it back. It cost me a shit pile of time and money.

If you do a lick of research you will find that voter fraud is minor compared to what these new laws will be.

Not that any folks on the right will do a lick of research on the matter.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Happens often, happened to me once when my wallet was stolen. It takes a few days, but it's pretty simple, fill out a form, present your birth certificate (an official one by the way) and apply for a new SS card.

Do they allow a copy of your birth certificate? Just curious..

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Happens often, happened to me once when my wallet was stolen. It takes a few days, but it's pretty simple, fill out a form, present your birth certificate (an official one by the way) and apply for a new SS card.

Yes very simple for organized folks with time and money. That is not who they are trying to disenfranchise with these laws though!

No self respecting libertarian would be for this card carrying crap!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

Do they allow a copy of your birth certificate? Just curious..

Do you know how much trouble it is to even get that without a DL?

This law was designed to affect older, poorer voters and younger voters.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

My daughter was taught, in no uncertain terms in college, that the former Soviet Union was not a communist country. Really? Imagine that. Here I thought I lived through the Cold War and knew who the enemy was. I was floored. She couldn’t understand why I got angry when she wanted to continue to rebut the fact that the Soviet Union was communist. So, yes, revisionist history and ideas are being taught at our institutions of higher learning.

In certain terms, what did they say the Soviet Union was? What school was this at? What class?

This info is important so that the public can avoid a class and school like this.

Unless it is anecdotal.

[Iaintliein]

Originally Posted by Guilty Pleasures

Do they allow a copy of your birth certificate? Just curious..

Nope, had to be official with the raised seal.

[Guest050715-1]

[quote=WTF;1901274]Our army has folks fighting in wars at 18...now you might say that is to young but if they can fight in a war they should be old enough to vote………..[/quote[

I think the age of majority should be 21. No service, no voting, no drinking, no contracting, no nothing because you are still under your parents’ care. But how about this, if you’re in the service and 18 you can vote; if you aren’t in the service, you can’t.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

In certain terms, what did they say the Soviet Union was? What school was this at? What class?

This info is important so that the public can avoid a class and school like this.

Unless it is anecdotal.

When you call a lady a liar have the balls to call her a liar straight up. Of course I’m not going to say what school my child goes to, and I assume it was a political science or some kind of world history class.

[Munchmasterman]

[quote=OliviaHoward;1902754]

Originally Posted by WTF

Our army has folks fighting in wars at 18...now you might say that is to young but if they can fight in a war they should be old enough to vote………..[/quote[

I think the age of majority should be 21. No service, no voting, no drinking, no contracting, no nothing because you are still under your parents’ care. But how about this, if you’re in the service and 18 you can vote; if you aren’t in the service, you can’t.



When you call a lady a liar have the balls to call her a liar straight up. Of course I’m not going to say what school my child goes to, and I assume it was a political science or some kind of world history class.

It has nothing to do with balls or you being a “lady” since one of them you lack (including the figurative sense) and the other you may or may not be.
It’s called “benefit of the doubt”. And thank you for removing it.


You didn’t say what the soviets were per your daughter.
You didn’t say what kind of class it was. It was worth getting angry over and having a continued discussion over but not remembering whether it came from a subjective class (polisci) or an “objective” class (world history).

So to recap. When given the chance to correct or provide additional information, you go straight for the balls in an instinctive or vocational move.
While what you said was anecdotal and your ignorance of your child’s course load can be blamed on your head surfacing only for air, I am still hesitant to call you a liar.

Let’s just say most of your statements contain some degree of inaccurate information and you must constantly be screened because of that.

Bitch.

[Guest050715-1]

[quote=Munchmasterman;1902972]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

It has nothing to do with balls or you being a “lady” since one of them you lack (including the figurative sense) and the other you may or may not be.
It’s called “benefit of the doubt”. And thank you for removing it.


You didn’t say what the soviets were per your daughter.
You didn’t say what kind of class it was. It was worth getting angry over and having a continued discussion over but not remembering whether it came from a subjective class (polisci) or an “objective” class (world history).

So to recap. When given the chance to correct or provide additional information, you go straight for the balls in an instinctive or vocational move.
While what you said was anecdotal and your ignorance of your child’s course load can be blamed on your head surfacing only for air, I am still hesitant to call you a liar.

Let’s just say most of your statements contain some degree of inaccurate information and you must constantly be screened because of that.

Bitch.

Bitch? Really? You’re whole comment is a diatribe or ridiculous. For example, World History is an objective course? Math is objective. History goes to the victor just ask anyone that lost a war.

Why are you so keen to find out personal information about me? Are you stalking me? See how that works. You insinuate that I’m lying by referring to my example as antidotal. I call you on it. Then you imply that I’m a bad parent because I don’t have my daughter’s course schedule memorized even so she’s in college, and that my statements contain “inaccurate information”. No, I disagree with you frequently that’s all; it doesn’t make my statements inaccurate. Now, watch how I close the loop: So now, I ask you again, why are you stalking me? Note I didn’t say “are you stalking me” like in the beginning of the paragraph, but “why are you stalking me.” One way of looking at it is that I have taken innuendo and made it a fact now kind of the way you tried to, but didn’t quite do. Another way of looking at is that I have created a revisionist history of the events.

If you want to debate, we can. If you want to call names, have at it. I’ll withdraw, and you can go back to being right.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

But how about this, if you’re in the service and 18 you can vote; if you aren’t in the service, you can’t.

Bad idea!

Strike that, make it a very bad idea! If they are old enough to die for their country, they are old enough to vote for or against the decision makers. That should hold true whether they are in the military or not!

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Bad idea!

Strike that, make it a very bad idea! If they are old enough to die for their country, they are old enough to vote for or against the decision makers. That should hold true whether they are in the military or not!

That's what I said. I don't think anyone should be in the military without the right to vote. That would be very wrong. I think the age of majority should be 21. 18 is just too young to die for your country, vote or anything.