NationStates Jolt Archive

And Teddy Kennedy leads the way.

From a story about the immigration travesty, also known as the Senate immigration legislation. <why don't reporters ever refer to the bill number?>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060524/ap_on_go_co/immigration_22

As far as I'm concerned, any objections to proof of ID at the polls are just objections to eliminating voter fraud. But why would we expect different from our Democratic party?


GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell (news, bio, voting record) sought to add to the bill a requirement that all voters in federal elections be required to present a valid photo identification.

"It is nonsense to suggest that somehow a photo ID for one of our most sacred rights should not be protected by a requirement that is increasingly routine in almost all daily activities in America today," said the Kentucky lawmaker, second-ranking Republican.

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., likened the proposal to a poll tax or a requirement for voters to pass a literacy test. "Now is not the time and this is not the place to consider an amendment that may disenfranchise a million or more poor, minority, disabled, and elderly voters — all of them American citizens," he said.

The repubs are just as bad.

States charge for a state issued ID. It's exactly the same as charging someone to vote. it's an apt comparison.

Now if they want to pass out state issued IDs for free that's different.

Hey, cool, we're making huge generalisations! Okay, okay, my turn!


Republicans are just huge, hypocritical frauds supporting a war criminal in the White House! We shouldn't expect any better from them.

The repubs are just as bad.
Hell of an argument there, pal.

States charge for a state issued ID. It's exactly the same as charging someone to vote. it's an apt comparison.

Now if they want to pass out state issued IDs for free that's different.
That was offered up as a plan in Georgia. The Democrats still objected. There is just something about positive ID and the Democratic party that don't mix.

Hell of an argument there, pal.

Like yours is the pinnacle of political debate old boy. Or shall we start basing the views and actions of an entire party on one person? If that's the case, then let's look at, oh, I don't know...Tom Delay?

Republicans=Democrats. As if an American would ever vote for a socialist hahaha

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., likened the proposal to a poll tax or a requirement for voters to pass a literacy test. "Now is not the time and this is not the place to consider an amendment that may disenfranchise a million or more poor, minority, disabled, and elderly voters — all of them American citizens," he said.
Of course he would say that. It would stop all the Illegals and dead people from voting for his party.

Like yours is the pinnacle of political debate old boy. Or shall we start basing the views and actions of an entire party on one person? If that's the case, then let's look at, oh, I don't know...Tom Delay?
Nice try, but this case has 48 Senators to point at.

Of course he would say that. It would stop all the Illegals and dead people from voting for his party.
You don't think that Democrats really do all those things, do you? I thought they just trotted out the felons, unregistered, and voted multiple times.

You don't think that Democrats really do all those things, do you? I thought they just trotted out the felons, unregistered, and voted multiple times.

Do you have an actual argument, or just large amounts of slander? I've seen more coherent arguments by the BNP.

You don't think that Democrats really do all those things, do you? I thought they just trotted out the felons, unregistered, and voted multiple times.
Anyone who should not vote, votes democrat.

Do you have an actual argument, or just large amounts of slander? I've seen more coherent arguments by the BNP.

Give him some credit, he's trying to show how Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff and all the Republicans in Congress are falsely accused of corruption that's really all the Democrats' fault!

:D

That was offered up as a plan in Georgia. The Democrats still objected. There is just something about positive ID and the Democratic party that don't mix.
They objected because there were going to be something like 6 places statewide where you could get a free ID--it still had the effect of disenfranchising poor people and those who have difficulty traveling.

And to stretch this argument to make Democrats pro-fraud is really beneath you, Myrmidonisia.

Liasia']Republicans=Democrats. As if an American would ever vote for a socialist hahaha
Vermont does. Bernie Sanders has been their Representative for years, and next January, he'll be one of their Senators.

Frankly this is rather amusing; the mud-slinging is occuring so fast and so often that everyone is just covered in mud in both parties.


At least, I think that's mud...

geez. didnt they toss enough crap into that immigration bill to satisfy you? maybe they should have added in prayer in schools and a ban on burning the flag too

kennedy is right, its inappropriate to toss anything about voting regulations into an immigration bill. if its important, it should be fully considered and debated by the full house and senate, not snuck into a bill that is already stuffed full of irrelevant crap.

Vermont does. Bernie Sanders has been their Representative for years, and next January, he'll be one of their Senators.

Go vermont! *does a little dance*

... if its important, it should be fully considered and debated by the full house and senate, not snuck into a bill that is already stuffed full of irrelevant crap.

exactly - and I thought we recently heard Republicans talking about how they were going to stop doing that very thing.

exactly - and I thought we recently heard Republicans talking about how they were going to stop doing that very thing.If there's one thing you can count on bipartisan support for, it's the practice of putting irrelevant shit into a bill. No way will that ever end.

As far as I'm concerned, any objections to proof of ID at the polls are just objections to eliminating voter fraud.

is the ID free? can they be gotten within easy walking distance of every single eligible voter? of course not. it's a fucking poll tax.

besides, photo IDs won't stop the major types of voter fraud anyway, and should be opposed on privacy grounds in the first place. the last thing we need is to have the state collecting more and more centralized data on everyone.

They objected because there were going to be something like 6 places statewide where you could get a free ID--it still had the effect of disenfranchising poor people and those who have difficulty traveling.

And to stretch this argument to make Democrats pro-fraud is really beneath you, Myrmidonisia.
No, there's a joke about fighter pilots that's appropriate.

What's the difference between a fighter pilot and a pig?

There's things even a pig won't do.

But seriously, why shouldn't we do more that just take a person's word that they are allowed to vote?

No, there's a joke about fighter pilots that's appropriate.

What's the difference between a fighter pilot and a pig?

There's things even a pig won't do.

But seriously, why shouldn't we do more that just take a person's word that they are allowed to vote?


Because a half assed solution is more of a problem than the current problem? Notice the folks who tend not to have IDs are in groups that largely vote Democrat? Notice the Republican proposed solution gives them the advantage of stopping many of those people from voting?

Because a half assed solution is more of a problem than the current problem? Notice the folks who tend not to have IDs are in groups that largely vote Democrat? Notice the Republican proposed solution gives them the advantage of stopping many of those people from voting?
What are you saying? Anyone that claims to have a name that matches one on a list of registered voters _is_ that person? Nah, that isn't it. I must have missed your point.

What are you saying? Anyone that claims to have a name that matches one on a list of registered voters _is_ that person? Nah, that isn't it. I must have missed your point.

Democrats are opposed, so it is possible that many will not get an ID if it's not compulsory. That of course, means no votes.

Republicans supporting this probably wouldn't mind an ID. No loss of voters.

There's a low enough voter-turnout already, don't make it lower.

*peers oddly at the title...* I never did that!

What are you saying? Anyone that claims to have a name that matches one on a list of registered voters _is_ that person? Nah, that isn't it. I must have missed your point.


If you're going to quote me, respond to something I said. Not something you wish I had said because it would make your point valid.

Do you have an actual argument, or just large amounts of slander? I've seen more coherent arguments by the BNP.


Check the 1960 presidential election , Chicago had a few number of dead people on the electrol roll and they all voted demoprat ......hmmmmmmmmm

Maybe the demoprats in florida in 2000 should have done the same trick

If you're going to quote me, respond to something I said. Not something you wish I had said because it would make your point valid.
I didn't see anything other than criticism offered. Truly in the spirit of the Democratic party.

I didn't see anything other than criticism offered. Truly in the spirit of the Democratic party.


I'd suggest you brush up on reading comprehension skills then:

States charge for a state issued ID. It's exactly the same as charging someone to vote. it's an apt comparison.

Now if they want to pass out state issued IDs for free that's different.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11018815&postcount=3

Check the 1960 presidential election , Chicago had a few number of dead people on the electrol roll and they all voted demoprat ......hmmmmmmmmm

Maybe the demoprats in florida in 2000 should have done the same trick

Oh, and the Republicans have never done any vote rigging themselves? Oh, and who are the Demoprats? I've never heard of them. Do you perchance mean the Democrats?

Oh, and the Republicans have never done any vote rigging themselves? Oh, and who are the Demoprats? I've never heard of them. Do you perchance mean the Democrats?


Wasn't it Connecticut this last presidential cycle where the Republicans conspired to flood a Democrat call center with bogus calls to disrupt them?

Why I can't imagine the Republicans bastions of morality and integrity (when they're not fucking male whores and taking bribes) would do such a thing!

I'd suggest you brush up on reading comprehension skills then:



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11018815&postcount=3
Short of more 'free' stuff from the government, there's just no way to deal with this? I'll bet a lot of these same poor people don't have any trouble proving who they are when it comes time to cash that monthly welfare check. In fact, an EBT card should be enough to prove you are who you claim to be.

No, there's a joke about fighter pilots that's appropriate.

What's the difference between a fighter pilot and a pig?

There's things even a pig won't do.

But seriously, why shouldn't we do more that just take a person's word that they are allowed to vote?
When I heard that joke, it was about a Congressman instead of a fighter pilot. I've also heard lawyer. But that's beside the point.

Sure, there's a need to tighten up who votes, but this isn't it. It's got to be a system that's not only equitable--it encourages the largest number of people who are eligible to vote to do so. The system proposed in that bill does the opposite. It has nothing to do with fraud and everything to do with making it more difficult for the poor to vote, because the poor, when they vote, tend to vote for the party currently not in power.

Even if we're not going to agree on this, let's be honest about it at least.

Short of more 'free' stuff from the government, there's just no way to deal with this? I'll bet a lot of these same poor people don't have any trouble proving who they are when it comes time to cash that monthly welfare check. In fact, an EBT card should be enough to prove you are who you claim to be.


What's an EBT card?

It's funny that you want solutions, but ones that won't cost anything. The convient solution would of course be just don't let those folks vote. Never mind the fact you're violating their rights. Who cares about rights? Oh yeah, the Democrats.

Also, don't say Democrats offer no solutions just because you refuse to even consider them. It is a solution, wether it's convient for your pompus argument or not.

this si the only reason democrats also dont want to do much about the border, they feel all these immigrants being poor and minority would vote democrat, allowing them to keep their jobs

this si the only reason democrats also dont want to do much about the border, they feel all these immigrants being poor and minority would vote democrat, allowing them to keep their jobs


Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with racist immigration policies. What about the Republicans who are against the border control nonsense? What's their story?


I ask because I already know, and if you're going to play that card against the dems I think it perfectly fair to point out the skeletons in your own closet.

Yeah, I'm sure it has nothing to do with racist immigration policies. What about the Republicans who are against the border control nonsense? What's their story?


I ask because I already know, and if you're going to play that card against the dems I think it perfectly fair to point out the skeletons in your own closet.

as for the republicans agaisnt imigration its because they are business men. business men getting cheap labor and making a profit.

if you truely think these politicians namely "kennedy" care about people, that is truelly something to laugh at.

Exactly. The only question on the immigration debate is: "Has W finally gone completely stupid?".

I'm voting "YES!".


Kennedy has been a moron for decades, he's only quoted because he's such an idiot.

What's an EBT card?

It's funny that you want solutions, but ones that won't cost anything. The convient solution would of course be just don't let those folks vote. Never mind the fact you're violating their rights. Who cares about rights? Oh yeah, the Democrats.

Also, don't say Democrats offer no solutions just because you refuse to even consider them. It is a solution, wether it's convient for your pompus argument or not.
Okay, I've got a good sense about what or who I'm dealing with now. If you don't know about EBT cards, you haven't had much interaction with ATMs. And that means that you don't appreciate the value of money as much as I do. It's all kind of abstract for you. I'm sure voting is in the same category.

Okay, I've got a good sense about what or who I'm dealing with now. If you don't know about EBT cards, you haven't had much interaction with ATMs. And that means that you don't appreciate the value of money as much as I do. It's all kind of abstract for you. I'm sure voting is in the same category.


So because I don't use ATMs I don't value money?

WOW! That's completely rational and logical to you isn't it?

By the way, what does my fiscal situation have to do with your being completely wrong?

Okay, I've got a good sense about what or who I'm dealing with now. If you don't know about EBT cards, you haven't had much interaction with ATMs. And that means that you don't appreciate the value of money as much as I do. It's all kind of abstract for you. I'm sure voting is in the same category.

Holy crap, that's one hell of a deduction. How the hell did you jump so far to connect those points?

Holy crap, that's one hell of a deduction. How the hell did you jump so far to connect those points?


It seems to be his debate tactic, whenever he can't confront the argument he alters it. Second time he's done it in this thread. I've not seen this many straw men outside of an archery range.

Concept of Voting = Concept of Money ?

Don't think so.

Wait, are republicans still opposing paper reciepts from electronic voting machines? Because if they are this thread seems even more empty than initially thought...

Yes, the Republicans still want to use the easily hackable, no-paper trail, click on Kerry vote for Bush voting machines.

Here is the actual amendment -

SEC. . IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS.

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION CARDS TO INCLUDE CITIZENSHIP INFORMATION.--Section 7212(b)(2)(D) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (vi), by inserting ``and'' at the end of clause (vii), and by adding at the end the following new clause:

``(viii) whether the person is a United States citizen;''.

(b) IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED FOR VOTING IN PERSON.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Title III of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15481 et seq.) is amended by redesignating sections 304 and 305 as sections 305 and 306, respectively, and by inserting after section 305 the following new section:

``SEC. 304. IDENTIFICATION OF VOTERS AT THE POLLS.

``(a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding the requirements of section 303(b), each State shall require individuals casting ballots in an election for Federal office in person to present before voting a current valid photo identification which is issued by a governmental entity and which meets the requirements of section 7212 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note).

``(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Each State shall be required to comply with the requirements of subsection (a) on and after January 1, 2008.''.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--Section 401 of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15511) is amended by striking ``and 303'' and inserting ``303, and 304''.


Now, if you can tell me how it is appropriate to amend another Act as part of this bill hidden somewhere in the amendments makes sense, please explain. This was an effort to slip in an amendment when the debate wasn't addressing this act. It's an amendment that should be done to the Act directly and not snuck in as a clause to a bill on immigration. It's an attempt to subjugate the debate.

http://www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/ID%20Barrier%20Report.pdf

There are many reasons to be concerned about this requirement. But, hey, it's better just make up things than foster a debate, huh, Myrm?

Okay, I've got a good sense about what or who I'm dealing with now. If you don't know about EBT cards, you haven't had much interaction with ATMs. And that means that you don't appreciate the value of money as much as I do. It's all kind of abstract for you. I'm sure voting is in the same category.

Good thing you didn't read the amendment. An EBT card doesn't count, and being poor doesn't mean you don't care about the vote. Many people don't use EBT's. I think it's funny that you mention EBT's as an ID for poor people with no ID and no money to buy one and then mention that EBT's are more likely to be held by people with money. Maybe if we just sit here you'll destroy all of your own arguments.

Here is the actual amendment -


There are many reasons to be concerned about this requirement. But, hey, it's better just make up things than foster a debate, huh, Myrm?
Congratulations on your ability to find things that the story leaves out. I did try to find some mention of the McConnell amendment on Thomas, but the effort overwhelmed the time I had available to search. The fact that one party managed to insert it into inappropriate legislation is not material. That happens all the time. It's not right, but it's what we allow our legislators to do. Leaving them in office is kind of like shopping at Wal-Mart. We all do it, but it leaves us feeling unclean.

But to the point. If a photo ID isn't a reasonable requirement for proving one is who one claims to be at the polls, what is? Or should there ever be a burden of proof on the voter to prove his identity? My contention still is that unless one is in favor of positive identification at the polls, one is still condoning voter fraud.

Since you found the text of the amendment, do this for us. Give us the breakdown of the 48 votes against the amendment by party.

By the way, I discuss. I don't debate.

Good thing you didn't read the amendment. An EBT card doesn't count, and being poor doesn't mean you don't care about the vote. Many people don't use EBT's. I think it's funny that you mention EBT's as an ID for poor people with no ID and no money to buy one and then mention that EBT's are more likely to be held by people with money. Maybe if we just sit here you'll destroy all of your own arguments.
When I mentioned the EBT, I was suggesting an alternative to a hard-to-get, way-too-expensive, and unreasonably-required state issued photo id card. Those folks that are likely to be unable to get a state issued photo id card are also very likely to have an EBT card and also must find a way to cash their montly welfare check. Cashing checks requires more identification than voting, so I figured they had something that would be acceptable in both cases.

When I mentioned the EBT, I was suggesting an alternative to a hard-to-get, way-too-expensive, and unreasonably-required state issued photo id card. Those folks that are likely to be unable to get a state issued photo id card are also very likely to have an EBT card and also must find a way to cash their montly welfare check. Cashing checks requires more identification than voting, so I figured they had something that would be acceptable in both cases.

Yes, all poor people are on welfare as evidenced by the link I gave you. You make assumptions, and you get a link that says other than what you claim and nothing. Obviously, your assumption that opposing this amendment can only be about condoning fraud must stand even if it is proved that it would deny people the abilty to vote despite them having that legal right. Don't bother addressing it. Don't let facts get in the way.

The repubs are just as bad.

Unfortunately, true. Never trust a politician. Period. Ever.

Congratulations on your ability to find things that the story leaves out. I did try to find some mention of the McConnell amendment on Thomas, but the effort overwhelmed the time I had available to search. The fact that one party managed to insert it into inappropriate legislation is not material. That happens all the time. It's not right, but it's what we allow our legislators to do. Leaving them in office is kind of like shopping at Wal-Mart. We all do it, but it leaves us feeling unclean.

But to the point. If a photo ID isn't a reasonable requirement for proving one is who one claims to be at the polls, what is? Or should there ever be a burden of proof on the voter to prove his identity? My contention still is that unless one is in favor of positive identification at the polls, one is still condoning voter fraud.

Since you found the text of the amendment, do this for us. Give us the breakdown of the 48 votes against the amendment by party.

By the way, I discuss. I don't debate.

You don't do either. You don't foster a discussion by starting with ridiculous hyperbole that have nothing to do with the actual opposition. That's called a strawman.

Is fraud possible without ID? Yes. Is fraud possible with ID? Yes. This isn't about fraud. It's about the fact that many people in the US who should be permitted to vote do not have access to government ID. Making it required denied them their right. It's quite simple.

And the 48 people who voted against this amendment did the right thing regardless of whether they supported the point of the amendment. The amendment was inappropriate as you pointed out.

Now we've listed several reasons to oppose the amendment other than what you claimed and you have made no effort to abate your claim that your reason is the only reason. Hey, Myrm, if the truth gets in your way, I see you're quite happy to just push it aside. The rest of us would rather we actually discuss things that exist.

Yes, all poor people are on welfare as evidenced by the link I gave you. You make assumptions, and you get a link that says other than what you claim and nothing. Obviously, your assumption that opposing this amendment can only be about condoning fraud must stand even if it is proved that it would deny people the abilty to vote despite them having that legal right. Don't bother addressing it. Don't let facts get in the way.
I don't follow links without some reason to go there. If you think the link is important, say so and say why. Including an abstract or a summary is kind of a courtesy that should be considered.

And Teddy Kennedy
And I stopped reading.

I don't follow links without some reason to go there. If you think the link is important, say so and say why. Including an abstract or a summary is kind of a courtesy that should be considered.

Uh-huh. It's a link that shows the percentage of people who have the legal right to vote but no identification.

Meanwhile, you blame me because you're lazy. Good thing you're here to 'discuss'. Now, one might claim that someone claiming democrats support fraud because they think there should not be a vote tax isn't really looking to discuss, but don't let that get in your way.

That was offered up as a plan in Georgia. The Democrats still objected. There is just something about positive ID and the Democratic party that don't mix.
Aren't Democrats supposed to be the authoritarian Stalinist party? Yet they don't like ID?

Aren't Democrats supposed to be the authoritarian Stalinist party? Yet they don't like ID?
That's the way the right-wing like to portray them--of course, it's the Republicans who are aiding and abetting the wholesale domestic spying programs and the like, so....

Aren't Democrats supposed to be the authoritarian Stalinist party? Yet they don't like ID?
Hypocrisy, Thy name is DNC.

Hypocrisy, Thy name is DNC.

Yes, it's very hypocritical for them not to act like something the Republican party made up. Now most logical people would just say they made the wrong assumptions about the DNC when they see evidence their assumptions are wrong, but the Republicans prefer to call it 'hypocrisy'.

If someone decides I'm a woman and I don't act like one or look like one, am I a hypocrite too?

Anyone who should not vote, votes democrat.
Above post proof that anyone who can't think for themselves, votes GOP.