Democrats Reject Valid ID For Voting
|
|
Thread rating:  |
D. Spencer Hines - 21 Sep 2006 17:31 GMT Typical Of The Democrats.
Even Here In Hawai'i We Have To Show Photo ID Cards In Order To Vote.
DSH ------------------------------------------------
House bill to require voter ID
By Charles Hurt THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 21, 2006
The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.
Appalling! They want to enfranchise tens of thousands of people who are not eligible to vote. -- DSH
The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House's one independent member.
The bill, which faces an uncertain future in the Senate, is part of a Republican effort to complete before the November elections a package of proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and its effects on ordinary Americans.
The so-called "Voter ID" bill, aimed at stamping out voter fraud, would require voters in federal elections to provide picture identification by 2008 and provide proof of U.S. citizenship by 2010. It was among the recommendations made last year by the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, a Republican.
Why wait until 2010 to require proof of U.S. Citizenship? -- DSH
"Effective voter registration and voter identification are bedrocks of a modern election system," they wrote in their final report.
But Democrats, siding with groups that work on behalf of minorities and illegal aliens, called the bill a "modern-day poll tax" and said it would place an insurmountable burden on voters and infringe upon their voting rights.
Twaddle! -- DSH
Rep. Brian Bilbray, California Republican, countered that the real infringement upon voting rights would be allowing fraudulent votes by the dead or illegal "to cancel out legitimate votes."
"That is the violation of the Voters Rights Act that we have not addressed," he told colleagues before the vote.
Democrats, who have long demanded reforms to the federal voting process, yesterday dismissed Republican concerns about voter fraud.
"Show me the examples of the problem you're trying to solve," demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the "fear and -- yes, perhaps -- the prejudices of people."
A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.
Mr. Bilbray pointed out that such convictions might be obtained if proper identification were required.
Voter fraud is not something you can come back to after the fraud is committed," he said. "The person who voted for those dead people is long gone by the time it comes up on the record."
Bingo! -- DSH
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, urged support of the bill because, she said, it would prevent illegal aliens from voting in U.S. elections.
"It's outrageous and inexcusable that voters do not have to show proof of citizenship in order to vote in an election," she said. "Illegal immigrants are populating this country at an unprecedented number, and it is unjust and unfair to citizens of this country that noncitizens should have a hand in electing federal officials."
Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Florida Democrat, said he's more concerned about discouraging voters than he is about illegals voting.
"Nonparticipation in the election process is more of a problem in this country than noncitizens trying to vote," Mr. Hastings said.
Rep. John Lewis, Georgia Democrat, called the bill a "modern-day poll tax" and charged that the bill "is nothing less than voter suppression."
Nonsense! It's designed to suppress only people who are not entitled to vote. -- DSH
He also reminded the Republican chamber of its overwhelming support in July for renewing the Voting Rights Act, although many conservatives off Capitol Hill warned that portions of it are no longer necessary.
"Just three months ago, this body passed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, admitting the sad fact that voter discrimination is still the reality," said Mr. Lewis, who said requiring identification at the polls is "an attack on the voting rights of millions of Americans."
John Lewis is a fraud, a charlatan and a liar. -- DSH
Across the Capitol in the Senate, Democrats continued to slow-walk legislation approved by the House last week to construct 700 miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The chamber voted yesterday 94-0 on a procedural motion to take up the bill.
Despite universal approval for taking up the legislation, Democratic leaders refused to grant "unanimous consent" agreements to speed up the process. -------------------------
Yep, stalling, foot-dragging and stonewalling...
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Jean - 22 Sep 2006 09:02 GMT D. Spencer Hines a écrit dans le message ...
>Typical Of The Democrats. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >SNIP IN times past there may have been a valid argument against requiring an ID to vote but that is no longer true. My 4 and 6 year old grand children in the USA have numerous forms of ID including birth certificates, Social security cards ect. My 10 year old grandchild who was born out side of the US has various forms of ID in addition to those mentioned and has no problem proving he is an American citizen. The only reason not to want voters to show ID when they vote is so those with no legal right to vote can do so without getting caught. The assumption being that the majority of the illegals will vote democrat.
Vince - 22 Sep 2006 12:13 GMT > D. Spencer Hines a écrit dans le message ... >> Typical Of The Democrats. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > without getting caught. The assumption being that the majority of the > illegals will vote democrat. The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents that most poor people do not have or cannot get.
no one cares about illegals
what they care about is disfranchising the poor.
Vince
Jack Linthicum - 22 Sep 2006 13:31 GMT > > D. Spencer Hines a écrit dans le message ... > >> Typical Of The Democrats. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Vince If 8 people share the same social secuity number can't they all share a photo id? Who is going to check?
Vince - 22 Sep 2006 13:55 GMT >>> D. Spencer Hines a écrit dans le message ... >>>> Typical Of The Democrats. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > If 8 people share the same social secuity number can't they all share a > photo id? Who is going to check? any evidence of voting by such folks?
Vince
Paul J Gans - 22 Sep 2006 17:34 GMT In alt.history.british Jack Linthicum <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > D. Spencer Hines a ?crit dans le message ... >> >> Typical Of The Democrats. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> Vince
>If 8 people share the same social secuity number can't they all share a >photo id? Who is going to check? To avoid that the bill specifies that you supply a number of documents, many of which you don't have at hand and will have to scramble around to get.
---- Paul J. Gans
Kurt Ullman - 22 Sep 2006 20:31 GMT > The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents that > most poor people do not have or cannot get. What exactly is being requested? I hear everything from drivers license and ID cards (not all at expensive) to birth certificates three generations back.
sanjian - 22 Sep 2006 21:09 GMT >> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents >> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. >> > What exactly is being requested? I hear everything from drivers > license and ID cards (not all at expensive) to birth certificates > three generations back. Generally driver's licenses.
Vince - 22 Sep 2006 21:37 GMT >>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents >>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Generally driver's licenses. not as I understand the bill At least for some people it requires It requires a
"photographic copy of any document which provides proof that the individual is a citizen of the United States"
Vince
sanjian - 22 Sep 2006 21:53 GMT >>>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents >>>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "photographic copy of any document which provides proof that the > individual is a citizen of the United States" 1) Any is not every.
2) Proposed legislation would make a driver's license such proof.
Vince - 22 Sep 2006 22:31 GMT >>>>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents >>>>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 2) Proposed legislation would make a driver's license such proof. But it isn't, which simply proves the purpose is disenfranchisement
Vince
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 00:50 GMT > >>>>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents > >>>>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > But it isn't, which simply proves the purpose is disenfranchisement If the purpose was disenfranchisement, I woulda gone for something more expensive than a few bucks a year. But, hey, that is just me.
Frances Kemmish - 23 Sep 2006 04:57 GMT >>>>>>>The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents >>>>>>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If the purpose was disenfranchisement, I woulda gone for something > more expensive than a few bucks a year. But, hey, that is just me. I assume that Vince meant that a driving licence is not proof of citizenship. I have a valid US driving licence, but I am not a US citizen.
Fran
Lawson English - 24 Sep 2006 17:53 GMT >>>>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents >>>>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 2) Proposed legislation would make a driver's license such proof. Only once a driver's license contains info that reflects country of citizenship. That's a national ID card. Most conservatives have been against that for generations... Odd how things change.
Kurt Ullman - 24 Sep 2006 17:58 GMT > Only once a driver's license contains info that reflects country of > citizenship. That's a national ID card. Most conservatives have been > against that for generations... Odd how things change. The easiest way would be make it like work. You have to have proof of citizenship and identification only to register. After that all you would need is proof that you are you.
Paul J Gans - 24 Sep 2006 21:31 GMT In alt.history.british Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Only once a driver's license contains info that reflects country of >> citizenship. That's a national ID card. Most conservatives have been >> against that for generations... Odd how things change.
> The easiest way would be make it like work. You have to have proof of >citizenship and identification only to register. After that all you >would need is proof that you are you. Would you believe that in all but one state that is the norm and has been the norm for many years?
With the seeming exception of North Dakota, every other state requires that you show proof of citizenship to register.
See http://usgovinfo.about.com/blvrbystate.htm
Don't believe the crap that the right wing puts out. Lying is almost second nature to them.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines - 24 Sep 2006 22:15 GMT > Would you believe that in all but one state that is the norm and has > been the norm for many years? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > ---- Paul J. Gans ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious!
Pure Codswallop...
I've never had to show proof of citizenship in any of the ten different states where I have voted -- neither has my wife in five of those -- the only ones where she has registered. I was single when I voted in the other five.
People often simply "affirm" they are U.S. citizens by signing a form. Far too seldom do they have to PROVE it with unimpeachable documentary evidence. Things are tightening up some places after 9/11 however, thank God.
Gans didn't want you to know all that -- so he elided it.
Both my wife and I are U.S. citizens of course, and would have no objection to showing proof -- a passport, for example, if required -- both to register and to vote.
Folks who don't have passports can show birth certificates or naturalization papers -- and a photo ID.
Gans is pontificating from Gross Ignorance again -- at is his favorite pastime -- POOF -- Poaching Out Of Field.
Democrats WANT the 30 million, or 20 million, or 15 million ILLEGALS -- or whatever the precise figure is -- to be able to VOTE.
That's the bottom-line Dirty Little Secret...
And they'll throw out every red herring they can think up -- including all this rubbish about "poll taxes" for poor, "discriminated-against" people in order to break the law and get those millions of illegals voting for Democrats.
They'll use every dirty trick they can dig up to defeat any legislation that ensures only citizens get to vote.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Paul J Gans - 25 Sep 2006 02:14 GMT In alt.history.british D. Spencer Hines <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Would you believe that in all but one state that is the norm and has >> been the norm for many years? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> ---- Paul J. Gans >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hilarious!
>Pure Codswallop...
>I've never had to show proof of citizenship in any of the ten different >states where I have voted -- neither has my wife in five of those -- the >only ones where she has registered. I was single when I voted in the other >five.
>People often simply "affirm" they are U.S. citizens by signing a form. Far >too seldom do they have to PROVE it with unimpeachable documentary evidence. >Things are tightening up some places after 9/11 however, thank God.
>Gans didn't want you to know all that -- so he elided it.
>Both my wife and I are U.S. citizens of course, and would have no objection >to showing proof -- a passport, for example, if required -- both to register >and to vote.
>Folks who don't have passports can show birth certificates or naturalization >papers -- and a photo ID.
>Gans is pontificating from Gross Ignorance again -- at is his favorite >pastime -- POOF -- Poaching Out Of Field.
>Democrats WANT the 30 million, or 20 million, or 15 million ILLEGALS -- or >whatever the precise figure is -- to be able to VOTE.
>That's the bottom-line Dirty Little Secret...
>And they'll throw out every red herring they can think up -- including all >this rubbish about "poll taxes" for poor, "discriminated-against" people in >order to break the law and get those millions of illegals voting for >Democrats.
>They'll use every dirty trick they can dig up to defeat any legislation that >ensures only citizens get to vote.
>DSH
>Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum Ah, my dear Pogue. Hoist again. It doesn't get any better than this. While the law might have changed since you voted illegally in 10 states, the fact is that if the law has NOT changed, you have committed felonies in 10 states.
You, by your own admission, did not present proof of citizenship. That's a crime everywhere but in North Dakota.
*YOU* violated the law.
The fact that they did not catch you means nothing. successfully robbing a market without being caught does not mean that no crime has been committed.
PRATFALL!
Hilarious!
Virginia will be most amused.
--- Paul J. Gans
Jack Linthicum - 24 Sep 2006 17:59 GMT > >>>>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents > >>>>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > citizenship. That's a national ID card. Most conservatives have been > against that for generations... Odd how things change. What was the first ID the 9/11 hijackers got? Virginia drivers licences, $30 a pop, after that it was whatever else could be gotten with that id. Do you know how many people may share the same drivers license number? Which in Virginia used to be your social security number, nice ploy he?
Snodgras Riklesnort - 25 Sep 2006 13:07 GMT Mr. Lithicum,
You are forgetting that after it was learned that the 9-11 terrorists got their licenses in Virginia, Virginia severely tightened up their regulations for getting a drivers license.
sanjian - 24 Sep 2006 18:54 GMT >>> not as I understand the bill >>> At least for some people it requires [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > citizenship. That's a national ID card. Most conservatives have been > against that for generations... Odd how things change. Conditions change. We may not like them, but we have to adapt.
redc1c4 - 23 Sep 2006 03:29 GMT Ponce wrote:
> >>> The demand is for an extremely expensive ID that requires documents > >>> that most poor people do not have or cannot get. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Vince which is available from the Registrar Recorder of the county of your birth for (when i've needed it) usually less than $20. or your citizenship papers, or a passport, which everyone is going to need by January, should they wish to vacation OCONUS.
i don't see anything "burdensome" there.....hell, you have to provide that just to (legally) get a j*b.
redc1c4, (who suspects Ponce is creating a "issue" where none exists. %-)
 Signature "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 11:29 GMT > Ponce wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > i don't see anything "burdensome" there.....hell, you have to > provide that just to (legally) get a j*b. no you don't Why don't you advocate providing ID Free? Why impose an "unfunded mandate" on the poor?
Vince
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 11:47 GMT On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article ONWdnZ9FqPfukYjYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com,
>> Ponce wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why don't you advocate providing ID Free? Why impose an "unfunded > mandate" on the poor? Providing everybody with a free ID card would suit me fine. The problem with it is that Vince and the rest of the left would scream, "That's unconstitutional!" The hidden agenda here, although I don't accuse Vince of subscribing to it, is that Democrats are helped in elections where ID requirements are low and they understandably want to keep them that way.
Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum - 23 Sep 2006 12:06 GMT > On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article ONWdnZ9FqPfukYjYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Grey Satterfield Florida and Ohio?
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 13:38 GMT On 9/23/06 6:06 AM, in article 1159009611.272705.308780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article ONWdnZ9FqPfukYjYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com, >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Florida and Ohio? Chicago?
Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum - 23 Sep 2006 13:45 GMT > On 9/23/06 6:06 AM, in article > 1159009611.272705.308780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Grey Satterfield You realize of course that is as close to ancient history as you can get, you would do better on gerrymandering Congressional districts once every two years to reflect the party in power. When was the last time Chicago determined a major election? 1960?
miguel - 23 Sep 2006 16:04 GMT >> On 9/23/06 6:06 AM, in article >> 1159009611.272705.308780@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > every two years to reflect the party in power. When was the last time > Chicago determined a major election? 1960? Chicago wasn't vote suppression or lax voter identification. It was outright fraud. The two don't compare.
miguel
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 15:14 GMT >> On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article
>> Providing everybody with a free ID card would suit me fine. The >> problem with it is that Vince and the rest of the left would scream, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Florida and Ohio? It's amazing how people on the left think mention of those states has an effect on those who aren't also on the left. Outside KOS and Democrats Underground, "Florida and Ohio" is a rallying cry and a boogeyman for just about no one.
Jack Linthicum - 23 Sep 2006 16:21 GMT > >> On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Underground, "Florida and Ohio" is a rallying cry and a boogeyman for just > about no one. But "Chicago" or five dead people voting in a primary in Texas is supposed to scare who?
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 19:45 GMT >>>> On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But "Chicago" or five dead people voting in a primary in Texas is > supposed to scare who? Scare no one, but remind us that there are actual democrats cheating (and Chicago may have actually changed the outcome of an election), where as Florida and Ohio are only examples of democrats throwing a temper tantrum because things didn't go their way.
Jack Linthicum - 23 Sep 2006 20:11 GMT > >>>> On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Florida and Ohio are only examples of democrats throwing a temper tantrum > because things didn't go their way. That sounds "fair and balanced"
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 20:19 GMT On 9/23/06 2:11 PM, in article 1159038683.986433.92220@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > That sounds "fair and balanced" Of course, "fair and balanced," to Jack means "not having a Democratic bias." :)
Grey Satterfield
Jack Linthicum - 23 Sep 2006 20:27 GMT > On 9/23/06 2:11 PM, in article > 1159038683.986433.92220@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Grey Satterfield are you that dense? It's Fox News' slogan
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 20:39 GMT On 9/23/06 2:27 PM, in article 1159039626.548218.243770@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 9/23/06 2:11 PM, in article >> 1159038683.986433.92220@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "Jack Linthicum" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > are you that dense? It's Fox News' slogan That, too, of course. If "Fair and Balanced" weren't Fox News' slogan why would anyone other than lockstep Leftists believe other than that it means fair and balanced?
Grey
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 23:48 GMT >>>> Scare no one, but remind us that there are actual democrats >>>> cheating (and Chicago may have actually changed the outcome of an [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > are you that dense? It's Fox News' slogan I don't work for Fox News.
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 23:47 GMT >>>> It's amazing how people on the left think mention of those states >>>> has an effect on those who aren't also on the left. Outside KOS [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That sounds "fair and balanced" Any wise man will tell you that there are two sides to every story. Only the village idiot will tell you that they have equal merit.
Fair and balanced is fine for the news. But I care about facts.
ded - 24 Sep 2006 00:08 GMT > Any wise man will tell you that there are two sides to every story.
I've found over the years that there are usually three sides to every story: what one side says, what the other side says and then what actually happened.
ded
 Signature BOFH excuse #391:
We already sent around a notice about that.
ded - 24 Sep 2006 00:13 GMT > Any wise man will tell you that there are two sides to every story.
I suggest that there are indeed three sides to every story: What one side says, what the second side says and then what actually happened. ded
 Signature BOFH excuse #256:
You need to install an RTFM interface.
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 12:51 GMT > On 9/23/06 5:29 AM, in article ONWdnZ9FqPfukYjYnZ2dnUVZ_vOdnZ2d@comcast.com, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > with it is that Vince and the rest of the left would scream, "That's > unconstitutional!" nonsense.
The hidden agenda here, although I don't accuse Vince of
> subscribing to it, is that Democrats are helped in elections where ID > requirements are low and they understandably want to keep them that way. Republicans generally benefit from keeping turnout low and making voting difficult.
Vince
TOliver - 23 Sep 2006 14:53 GMT "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote ....
> Republicans generally benefit from keeping turnout low and making voting > difficult. That's a fair criticism, but then in one of my county's precincts (one with less than 5% Republican votes, those likely from folks with obscured vision, and this was Primary Day anyway), there's an investigation to determine how a half dozen folks made the drive from Doris Miller Memorial Cemetery, managed to walk in, go to the boothes and mark their ballots.
Democrats are always crying for voter turnout, but that's pushing the boundary. An actual heartbeat will be required in November.
TMO
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 15:16 GMT > "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote .... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Democrats are always crying for voter turnout, but that's pushing the > boundary. An actual heartbeat will be required in November. Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives you the right to withold the vote from them?
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 18:22 GMT > Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives you the > right to withold the vote from them? I am sorry but you should refer to them as the metabolically impaired.
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 19:46 GMT >> Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives >> you the right to withold the vote from them? > I am sorry but you should refer to them as the metabolically > impaired. Ah! I'm sorry, I hadn't gotten the memo. I need to write to the metabolically impared anti-defamation league for absolution.
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 20:14 GMT > >> Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives > >> you the right to withold the vote from them? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah! I'm sorry, I hadn't gotten the memo. I need to write to the > metabolically impared anti-defamation league for absolution. That's okay this once. The MIADL will give you a pat on the head and nod knowingly then will absolve you of your sins.
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 23:46 GMT >>>> Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives >>>> you the right to withold the vote from them? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's okay this once. The MIADL will give you a pat on the head and > nod knowingly then will absolve you of your sins. And then eat my brains?
Lawson English - 24 Sep 2006 17:58 GMT >>>>> Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives >>>>> you the right to withold the vote from them? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And then eat my brains? For a detailed retrospective on the zombie war and its aftermath, try:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1484923
Tankfixer - 25 Sep 2006 03:37 GMT In article <ef3fht01npd@news1.newsguy.com>, sanjian@widomaker.com mumbled
> > "Vince" <firelaw@firelaw.us> wrote .... > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Excuse me, are you discriminating against the deceased? What gives you the > right to withold the vote from them? They have no right to vote !
The deadbeats...
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 12:54 GMT > > i don't see anything "burdensome" there.....hell, you have to > > provide that just to (legally) get a j*b. > > no you don't Then you might want to write St. Vincent hospital in Indy and tell them that. When I started there a month ago, they required that I prove who I was and that I was either a citizen, had my green card or an appropriate work visa. There was a two page list of things I could bring to that. I have a passport, which did both. But I could bring a photo ID from a government agency and birth certificate or baptismal papers, or green card, or etc. etc.
> Why don't you advocate providing ID Free? Why impose an "unfunded > mandate" on the poor? Pretty much everyone who comes into the Psych Unit when I worked at the County General Hospital had at least a state ID card.
redc1c4 - 23 Sep 2006 19:08 GMT Ponce wrote:
> > Ponce wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Vince because it isn't "free"..... someone has to pay for it. it's your ID: you want it, you pay for it. i see no reason why *i* should have to pay for yours anymore than you should have to pay for mine.
even in the most downtrodden neighborhoods here in LA there are cars, satellite TV dishes, designer clothes, and a variety of restaurants. hell, even on skid row there's a thriving drug trade. people have money, and they spend it on what's important to them. if someone isn't willing to spend less than $20 ONCE in order to vote, then obviously voting isn't important to them.
besides, since you *HAVE* to have the same proof in order to w*rk, these people, for the most part, already have said documentation.
redc1c4, (wheather or not it's fraudulent is another question entirely. %-)
 Signature "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
William Black - 23 Sep 2006 19:28 GMT > Ponce wrote:
> > Why don't you advocate providing ID Free? Why impose an "unfunded > > mandate" on the poor? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you want it, you pay for it. i see no reason why *i* should have to > pay for yours anymore than you should have to pay for mine. In India, where there's an awful lot of very poor people, everyone has two ID cards, one known as a ration card, one a voting card, which has a picture on it. You can't vote without one, you can't buy fuel for cooking without the other, you can't get a mobile phone or buy a car or do a myriad of other stuff without one of them.
No costs fall on the individual, no serious civil liberties problems.
 Signature William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 19:43 GMT On 9/23/06 1:28 PM, in article ef3uai$hcf$1@news.freedom2surf.net, "William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ponce wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No costs fall on the individual, no serious civil liberties problems. I agree that such an ID card would not infringe on the civil liberties of anyone but the American Left has always reflexively opposed anything that could be called a "national ID card."
Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines - 23 Sep 2006 19:53 GMT It's quite typical of Black to think that Americans should do things as they are done in Britain or India.
No Sale.
DSH
> On 9/23/06 1:28 PM, in article ef3uai$hcf$1@news.freedom2surf.net, > "William [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Grey Satterfield William Black - 23 Sep 2006 20:07 GMT > It's quite typical of Black to think that Americans should do things as they > are done in Britain or India. When did I say that?
I gave an example.
No comment, no direction.
I should add that there is no ID national card in the UK and lots of resistance.
I was sceptical but having lived for some time in India this year my objections have gone.
 Signature William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach Time for tea.
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 20:00 GMT > On 9/23/06 1:28 PM, in article ef3uai$hcf$1@news.freedom2surf.net,
>> No costs fall on the individual, no serious civil liberties >> problems. > > I agree that such an ID card would not infringe on the civil > liberties of anyone but the American Left has always reflexively > opposed anything that could be called a "national ID card." Hell, you don't have to be on the left to not like it. But even if I don't like the idea, I agree that it's probably becoming necessary. Bugger.
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 20:32 GMT > On 9/23/06 1:28 PM, in article ef3uai$hcf$1@news.freedom2surf.net, "William > Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > anyone but the American Left has always reflexively opposed anything that > could be called a "national ID card." I don't
but I do reject any obligation to carry such card and display it to police, which is what is always suggested
Vince
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 21:26 GMT On 9/23/06 2:32 PM, in article 5-CdnUcNIKtXFojYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com,
>> On 9/23/06 1:28 PM, in article ef3uai$hcf$1@news.freedom2surf.net, "William >> Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Vince I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period.
Grey Satterfield
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 21:37 GMT > On 9/23/06 2:32 PM, in article 5-CdnUcNIKtXFojYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com, > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Grey Satterfield and free
Vince
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 22:04 GMT On 9/23/06 3:37 PM, in article npGdneD26IZsB4jYnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com,
>> On 9/23/06 2:32 PM, in article 5-CdnUcNIKtXFojYnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com, >>> but I do reject any obligation to carry such card and display it to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > and free Yes, of course, that, too. I can't think of anything more important to spend money on.
Grey Satterfield
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 22:08 GMT > > I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. > > > > Grey Satterfield > > > and free If used only for voting, I would agree. However, if other forms CAN be used for voting (state-issued ID cards, driver's licenses, etc) then they could still charge.
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 22:26 GMT >>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be used for voting (state-issued ID cards, driver's licenses, etc) then > they could still charge. But if they require proof of citizenship, they should be free
Vince
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 22:34 GMT > >>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > But if they require proof of citizenship, they should be free Why? If the primary purpose is something else but they can also be used for voting, that doesn't make any sense. You would then suggest that passports (which currently prove both identity and citizenship) should all of a sudden be free just because they now have a secondary use?
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 23:02 GMT On 9/23/06 4:34 PM, in article kurtullman-BCC300.17343023092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx,
>>>>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > should all of a sudden be free just because they now have a secondary > use? That's different, I think. The voter ID card would be used to solve a VERY serious problem: illegal aliens voting. Because stopping such abuses is such an imperative, I agree with Vince that voter ID cards should be free.
Grey Satterfield
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 23:06 GMT > On 9/23/06 4:34 PM, in article > kurtullman-BCC300.17343023092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > serious problem: illegal aliens voting. Because stopping such abuses is > such an imperative, I agree with Vince that voter ID cards should be free. I have said the same thing, but Vince seems to be stating that if something CAN be used for voting then it should be free.
Jack Linthicum - 23 Sep 2006 23:10 GMT > > On 9/23/06 4:34 PM, in article > > kurtullman-BCC300.17343023092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I have said the same thing, but Vince seems to be stating that if > something CAN be used for voting then it should be free. Anybody here remember how the 9/11 hijackers got their id? Paid off the Virginia Highway Department people at $30 a head just like everybody else. Fakes are easy to obtain, so stop yattering about whether its paid for or not.
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 23:29 GMT On 9/23/06 5:06 PM, in article kurtullman-15CED9.18064523092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx,
>> On 9/23/06 4:34 PM, in article >> kurtullman-BCC300.17343023092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I have said the same thing, but Vince seems to be stating that if > something CAN be used for voting then it should be free. Vince would have to speak for himself but if that's his position, I disagree.
Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines - 24 Sep 2006 00:49 GMT > On 9/23/06 5:06 PM, in article
> kurtullman-15CED9.18064523092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx,
> kurtullman-15CED9.18064523092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx,
>> I have said the same thing, but Vince seems to be stating that if >> something CAN be used for voting then it should be free. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Grey Satterfield ------------------------------------
But, far more important, will SCOTUS agree with you?
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 01:08 GMT > On 9/23/06 5:06 PM, in article > kurtullman-15CED9.18064523092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Vince would have to speak for himself but if that's his position, I > disagree. a voting ID should be free.
Vince
D. Spencer Hines - 24 Sep 2006 01:28 GMT Brannigan says if the voting card is not free then a poll tax is being imposed.
Poll taxes are verboten.
Will SCOTUS agree with Brannigan, if a case comes before them?
Brannigan wants the cards to be free for ALL eligible voters -- not just poor people -- otherwise a poll tax is being imposed on some.
Will SCOTUS agree with him?
DSH
> a voting ID should be free. > > Vince NoNoBadDog! - 24 Sep 2006 01:43 GMT > Brannigan says if the voting card is not free then a poll tax is being > imposed. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Vince Democratic Liberals depend heavily upon those "without documentation". The Democrats are afraid that if an ID verification process is instituted, they would lose the ability to get votes from illegal immigrants, migrants, deceased etc...as these votes are critical to their agenda.
Bobby
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 01:55 GMT >> Brannigan says if the voting card is not free then a poll tax is being >> imposed. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bobby So provide free ID
otherwise its just a poll tax
Vince
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 23:52 GMT >>> Why? If the primary purpose is something else but they can also >>> be used for voting, that doesn't make any sense. You would then [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have said the same thing, but Vince seems to be stating that if > something CAN be used for voting then it should be free. That's not the way I read what Vince is saying. I think his gist is that a voter ID card would be free, but if you happen to have another form, like a passport or a DL, that you've paid for, then that would also work. So most of us show or Driver's License, but those who don't have one could show the Voter ID.
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 01:07 GMT >> On 9/23/06 4:34 PM, in article >> kurtullman-BCC300.17343023092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I have said the same thing, but Vince seems to be stating that if > something CAN be used for voting then it should be free. Anyone should get a free voting ID card.
Vince
Tankfixer - 25 Sep 2006 03:37 GMT In article <U7idnblHTeGjUYjYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>, firelaw@firelaw.us mumbled
> >> On 9/23/06 4:34 PM, in article > >> kurtullman-BCC300.17343023092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Anyone should get a free voting ID card. Don't you mean citizens should get a voting ID card free of charge ?
Vince - 25 Sep 2006 12:45 GMT > In article <U7idnblHTeGjUYjYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>, > firelaw@firelaw.us mumbled [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Don't you mean citizens should get a voting ID card free of charge ? anyone eligible to vote should get a free id card indicating that status
Vince
TOliver - 25 Sep 2006 15:00 GMT > Tankfixer wrote......
>> Don't you mean citizens should get a voting ID card free of charge ? > > anyone eligible to vote should get a free id card indicating that status I agree with Vince, both in an ethical and legal sense....
1. The Supremes long ago (and in no narrow decision) held that the requirement for a tax or similar payment for the right to vote was clearly illegal. A "fee" for a voter ID card clearly meets that test.
2. I believe that the "state" (in this case the several states) who in law would have to issue cards, since there is no such thing as a "national" election, should be required to make voter ID cards, with photo and hopefully a better means of verification, broadly and widely available in all venues. Obviously, they are likely to be "more available" in Chicago, etc., than in Plano, but anything would be preferable to the abuses which I have routinely seen in local elections (and read of or seen elesewhere).
There was a time - long ago - when I supported the concept of allowing only "property owners" - payers of ad valorem taxes on land or personal/business property - to vote in local bond elections, but even that changed (and the courts have been correct) with the advent of local "sales", "income" and other taxes (Hotel/motel, rentacar, and a dozen more) levied on non-property owners, providing them with equal vesting when it came to approving government - state, local, special district - borrowings.
....But then I would only allow mail or internet balloting by folks clearly identified as physically unable to come to the polls, although I like my states "early voting" setup.
TMO
Jack Linthicum - 25 Sep 2006 15:11 GMT as clearly
> illegal. A "fee" for a voter ID card clearly meets that test. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > etc., than in Plano, but anything would be preferable to the abuses which I > have routinely seen in local elections (and read of or seen elesewhere). I would think that the present availability of a fingerprint reader for something as universal and mundane as logging onto a computer would suggest that each polling place could have such, able to read a card issued to all who ask for them, without the photo id that seems to excite people.
Early attempts at a photo id system at a security operation I worked at failed because of--- wait for it---women's hair. The photo id could read every part of the face but changing hair shape and color threw it off.
Tankfixer - 26 Sep 2006 01:56 GMT In article <qMSdnag4JP7WXIrYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>, firelaw@firelaw.us mumbled
> > In article <U7idnblHTeGjUYjYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com>, > > firelaw@firelaw.us mumbled [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > anyone eligible to vote should get a free id card indicating that status Cut the lawyer answer vince.
Vince - 26 Sep 2006 02:47 GMT > In article <qMSdnag4JP7WXIrYnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@comcast.com>, > firelaw@firelaw.us mumbled [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Cut the lawyer answer vince. not all citizens can vote
vince
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 00:59 GMT >>>>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > should all of a sudden be free just because they now have a secondary > use? passports are travel documents. they are for other countries
voting is a special case.
Vince
redc1c4 - 24 Sep 2006 00:41 GMT Ponce wrote:
> >>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Vince only if it comes out of your income, and not mine. i do not support giving anything away. you use it, you pay for it. no, i'm not interested in "subsidizing" anyone's either. save your money like i do, do without. it's a free country, make a choice as to what's important to you, then live with it. you wanna vote, get your ID. you don't give a sh.t, get the latest CD..... they're about the same price.
redc1c4, TANSTAFL.
 Signature "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 01:15 GMT > Ponce wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > redc1c4, > TANSTAFL. So how much should people have to apy to vote
should they have to buy the ballots? Pay a fee for the machine ?
Vince
redc1c4 - 24 Sep 2006 04:44 GMT Ponce wrote:
> > Ponce wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Vince sophistry on your part, as usual.
taxpayers vote. elections are run by the Registrar/Recorder as part of their usual and customary duties, paid for out of taxes. the issuance of documents, or replacements thereof, have been, for years, a function for which a fee, of reasonable size, has been charged.
voting costs nothing. possessing the ID, necessary for day to day life, costs a pittance. no one makes you get the ID, but since you can't lead a normal life without it, claiming it's a burden that prevents people from voting is bullshit.
redc1c4, and i'd expect nothing more from you. %-)
 Signature "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 05:30 GMT > Ponce wrote: >>> Ponce wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > can't lead a normal life without it, claiming it's a burden that > prevents people from voting is bullshit. If its a pittance, pay it from taxes it avoids transaction costs. Voting is a special case.
Fees for documents cannot be turned into fees for voting.
Vince
sanjian - 24 Sep 2006 01:35 GMT > Ponce wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > you don't give a sh.t, get the latest CD..... they're about > the same price. If you're the one mandating their use, shouldn't you pay for them? I don't like paying for more, but I also don't like unfunded federal mandates (or state or local, for that matter).
D. Patterson - 24 Sep 2006 01:36 GMT > Ponce wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > redc1c4, > TANSTAFL. Such may be valid for many other aspects of exercising the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, but voting and exacting a special cost for exercising the right to vote is arguably a particular exception. Although the cost of obtaining a voter identification card could be quite minimal at present, there is no reason to believe it would necessarily remain so once a principal has been compromised and it has become accepted that exercising the right to vote requires a voter's defrayment of a government cost to do so. In the State of Washington, voters finally rebelled when the formerly minimal cost of the annual vehicle licensing fees were increased from tens of dollars to hundreds of dollars and more for the purpose of balancing the state's budget for the general fund. When Cordell Hull proposed the adoption of a Federal income tax, he wrote a comment about how he believed the voters could be trusted to throw out of office any member of Congress who dared to incease such a Federal income tax rate beyond a maximum proposed 6 to 7 percent rate. We all know today how that failed to work with Congress as he hoped and trusted. Letting Congress and any political parties get their hands on a poll tax or any other form of taxing voter registrations is an invitation for future unconscienable taxations of the right to vote. Voter registration is one aspect of citizenship which needs to be secured from abuse by any party, especially the legislators of the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures. Illegal voting, denial of access to voting, and vote fraud are all abuses which need to be abated.
D. Spencer Hines - 24 Sep 2006 02:20 GMT Excellent Point!
Do you have a verbatim, dated quotation and citation for Cordell Hull's comment?
Al Gore and his daddy were later the Congress critters from that same district in Tennessee.
The Federal Income Tax started out as something on the order of 1% didn't it -- and was used to finance World War I?
DSH
> When Cordell Hull proposed the adoption of a Federal income tax, he wrote > a comment about how he believed the voters could be trusted to throw out > of office any member of Congress who dared to increase such a Federal > income tax rate beyond a maximum proposed 6 to 7 percent rate. We all know > today how that failed to work with Congress as he hoped and trusted. D. Patterson - 24 Sep 2006 03:19 GMT >>When Cordell Hull proposed the adoption of a Federal income tax, he wrote >>a comment about how he believed the voters could be trusted to throw out >>of office any member of Congress who dared to increase such a Federal >>income tax rate beyond a maximum proposed 6 to 7 percent rate. We all know >>today how that failed to work with Congress as he hoped and trusted.
> Excellent Point! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > DSH I don't recall the sources at the moment. IIRC, Cordell's comment may have been made during the Congressional hearings or speeches. Yes, the rate started at 1 percent for a minimum of $4,000 income to a maximum rate of 7 percent for incomes of $500,000 or greater. Less than 20 percent of the population were liable for reporting an income tax return. This quickly changed. By 1917 and the First World War, there was a 1 percent tax rate on a $1,000 minimum income and a maximum tax rate of 77 percent on incomes of $500,000 or more, not counting deductions for children etc.
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 22:06 GMT > I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. > Or for various other Identification uses... check cashing, buying beer, etc.
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 22:25 GMT >> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. >> > Or for various other Identification uses... check cashing, buying > beer, etc. neither requires citizenship
Vince
Kurt Ullman - 23 Sep 2006 22:32 GMT > >> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Vince And exactly where did I say otherwise. I was merely suggesting that the voting ID card could have other uses.
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 23:55 GMT >>>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. >>>> Period. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And exactly where did I say otherwise. I was merely suggesting > that the voting ID card could have other uses. That may have been your intent, but given the flow of the conversation, that was not what you ended up saying. Vince said it should only be neccessary to vote. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be used for other purposes, but that it would only be obligatory for that purpose. You ended up inadvertantly saying that it should be obligatory for check cashing and buying beer.
Vince - 24 Sep 2006 01:18 GMT >>>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And exactly where did I say otherwise. I was merely suggesting > that the voting ID card could have other uses. necessary?
Vince
Grey Satterfield - 23 Sep 2006 22:56 GMT On 9/23/06 4:06 PM, in article kurtullman-6CE9B9.17064423092006@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx,
>> I agree. It should be necessary only for those who want to vote. Period. >> > Or for various other Identification uses... check cashing, buying > beer, etc. Sure, the cardholder shouldn't have to show his card except as a precondition for obtaining something the cardholder wants.
Grey Satterfield
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 23:49 GMT >> On 9/23/06 1:28 PM, in article ef3uai$hcf$1@news.freedom2surf.net,
>>> No costs fall on the individual, no serious civil liberties >>> problems. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but I do reject any obligation to carry such card and display it to > police, which is what is always suggested To tell the truth, that makes me a touch wary, as well. But for getting jobs and voting, I can bear it.
sanjian - 23 Sep 2006 19:47 GMT > Ponce wrote:
>> no you don't >> Why don't you advocate providing ID Free? Why impose an "unfunded [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > besides, since you *HAVE* to have the same proof in order to w*rk, > these people, for the most part, already have said documentation. What form of ID is required to recieve welfare?
redc1c4 - 23 Sep 2006 23:56 GMT > > Ponce wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > What form of ID is required to recieve welfare? couldn't tell you, since, as a native born white male, i don't qualify for anything but paying for it......
redc1c4, (which is sad but mostly true. %-)
 Signature "Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
Vince - 23 Sep 2006 20:27 GMT > Ponce wrote: >>> Ponce wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > because it isn't "free"..... someone has to pay for it. it's your ID: > you want it, you pay for it. in other words if you want to vote, pay for it clear enough
i see no reason why *i* should have to
> pay for yours anymore than you should have to pay for mine. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > redc1c4, > (wheather or not it's fraudulent is another question entirely. %-) Then it is a poll tax. you have to put up money to vote
Vince
Mark Test - 25 Sep 2006 05:13 GMT > > Ponce wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why don't you advocate providing ID Free? Why impose an "unfunded > mandate" on the poor? You have to have a Social Security card to get a job.... Do non-US citizens have social security cards issued to them?
Mark
 Signature Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Grey Satterfield - 25 Sep 2006 12:40 GMT On 9/24/06 11:13 PM, in article 45174a9e$0$19627$88260bb3@free.teranews.com,
> You have to have a Social Security card to get a job.... > Do non-US citizens have social security cards issued to them? Not so. You have to provide a Social Security NUMBER, not a card. That's a significant difference.
Grey Satterfield
Vince - 25 Sep 2006 12:49 GMT > On 9/24/06 11:13 PM, in article 45174a9e$0$19627$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, >> You have to have a Social Security card to get a job.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Grey Satterfield We (U of MD) now require at least a copy of the card itself, or a passport or birth certificate
Vince
Kurt Ullman - 25 Sep 2006 13:22 GMT > On 9/24/06 11:13 PM, in article 45174a9e$0$19627$88260bb3@free.teranews.com, > > You have to have a Social Security card to get a job.... > > Do non-US citizens have social security cards issued to them? > > Not so. You have to provide a Social Security NUMBER, not a card. That's a > significant difference. The answer to the other question is yes. Anyone working in the US even non-US citizens, have to have SS card.
|
|