What? No comments on a white man getting Eric Holder's ballot?

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by CJ7

woof woof


Republican National Committee has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to political consultants like Arno Political Consultants to register voters and gather signatures for petitions in states all across the US, but with slamming tactics. Since 2003, reports from Florida, Washington, California, Nevada, Oregan and Massachusetts about Arno and its subcontractors have revealed fraudulent tactics in petition drives that result in voter fraud slamming.

Sounds like Acorn lite to me.

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by timpage

So, the fact that some activist repuke committed voter fraud to prove how much voter fraud there is means that there is a lot of voter fraud?

First, he didn't commit vote fraud. He didn't cast the ballot. Had he actually cast the ballot, THAT would have been vote fraud. Get your facts and the law straight.

Typical 'bot logic. And look how pleased they all are about it. Giddy.



I don't expect any of you dimwitted types to get it but I'll say it again: voter fraud is a figment of your imagination. It happens rarely and when it does happen, it is even more rare at the actual polls. Most of the instances you magoos rely on relate to petitions for eligibility or, of course, something that happened 75 years ago in Texas.

How would you know it happens rarely? The point of the "stunt" was to prove how EASY it is to do, and how EASY it is to go undetected, and therefore how EASY it is to go unprosecuted. Get it? Like I said originally, any argument based on the "scarcity" of prosecutions for this crime is phony. Unless you have a mechanism in place - like requiring photo ID - to catch people committing this type of fraud YOU WILL NOT DETECT IT. Get it?

This guy intentionally committing voter fraud so he can have his 15 minutes of knuckleheaded fame is the perfect illustration. He had a reason to commit voter fraud: so he could be famous and well-liked by you folks who find this kind of juvenile behavior heroic and amusing.

Again, you are completely ignorant of the law and the facts. He did not commit voter fraud because he didn't cast the ballot, shithead.

The normal person does not commit voter fraud because there is nothing to be gained by it other than a trip to prison if you get caught. The entire idea behind forcing voters to show picture ID is to suppress the democratic vote, thereby increasing the likelihood of a repuke victory. It's voter suppression and those of you that support it are guilty of attempting to deprive American citizens of their most basic right of citizenship. Shame.

Voting is NOT a right of citizenship. RIGHTS, by definition, cannot be taken away. PRIVILEGES can be. Voting is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT. Even minors have a RIGHT to freedom of speech and religion. But only CITIZENS who are 18 years of age or older, and who have not committed felonies (in many states) may vote. Do you not understand this very basic distinction? Calling it a right doesn't make it a right.

Keep reading the foregoing sentences and maybe it will eventually reach your tiny brain-stem.

And how likely is it that ANYTHING ANYBODY presents favoring voter ID laws will sink into your pea-brain? Perhaps you'd like me to post the 6-3 SCOTUS decision UPHOLDING THE INDIANA VOTER PHOTO ID LAWS AS CONSTITUTIONAL? Do you think you could make sense of that decision, or do you prefer the Cliff-Notes version the Dimmocrap party puts out? Yeah, it's not like SCOTUS hasn't addressed this issue before. SCOTUS doesn't have a problem with the constitutionality of voter ID laws, only the Obummer/Holder/Perez DOJ does.

See my comments in red

Oh hell, I wasn't going to bother, but it's just TOO DAMNED EASY to find reports on SCOTUS and voter ID laws. Start with this one - one of the very first to pop up when you Google "SCOTUS voter ID laws"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798...-voter-id-law/

And I'll even quote the sub-headline, attributed to one of the MOST LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF ALL TIME:

"[Justice John Paul] Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process"

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

See my comments in red

Oh hell, I wasn't going to bother, but it's just TOO DAMNED EASY to find reports on SCOTUS and voter ID laws. Start with this one - one of the very first to pop up when you Google "SCOTUS voter ID laws"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798...-voter-id-law/

And I'll even quote the sub-headline, attributed to one of the MOST LIBERAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF ALL TIME:

"[Justice John Paul] Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process"

I agree with 99% of what you say. I take exception to the statement that rights can not be taken away. Life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness can all be taken away, but only after due process.

I think it's interesting that Jefferson originally wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, liberty and property. Ben Franklin talked Jefferson into changing the right to own property into the right to pursue happiness because slaves were considered to be property (Franklin was an abolitionist) at that time. Franklin didn't want people to think that the right to own slaves was in the Declaration.

[CuteOldGuy]

We have had almost all of our rights taken away by acts of Congress and Executive Order. And by the benign neglect of the American people. All we truly have left are tolerances, and those will be removed when they become too problematic.

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I agree with 99% of what you say. I take exception to the statement that rights can not be taken away.

Perhaps my meaning would be clearer if I stated it a different way.

Rights are not granted. The state doesn't grant you the right to life.

Privileges are granted. The state can, and does, grant you the privilege of voting upon reaching your 18th birthday. And the state can administratively take away that which it has granted, upon conviction of a felony, for example.

In the context of this discussion, I was merely trying to address the IDIOTIC statement by another reader that voting is some sort of inviolate, sacred right, earned by merely being able to inhale and exhale.

[CuteOldGuy]

Oh, yeah! Well, isn't the right to vote enshrined in our Constitution?????!!!!

Wait a sec. Oops. It's not. Sorry. Mastermind is right.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by mastermind238

Perhaps my meaning would be clearer if I stated it a different way.

Rights are not granted. The state doesn't grant you the right to life.

Privileges are granted. The state can, and does, grant you the privilege of voting upon reaching your 18th birthday. And the state can administratively take away that which it has granted, upon conviction of a felony, for example.

In the context of this discussion, I was merely trying to address the IDIOTIC statement by another reader that voting is some sort of inviolate, sacred right, earned by merely being able to inhale and exhale.

The left routinely misuses the term right, as in having a right. They claim they have a right to healthcare, housing, food, a living wage, etc, etc.

Obama said in an interview with NPR that he believed in what he called "positive liberties", essentially the things that the government should be required to do for you. He stated his regret that SCOTUS had not broken free from the restraints placed on them by the founders preventing the redistribution of wealth.

From Obama's interview with NPR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTCNK7v3J6w

[mastermind238]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

The left routinely misuses the term right, as in having a right. They claim they have a right to healthcare, housing, food, a living wage, etc, etc.

Ain't that the truth!!