(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

My solution is you either show up to vote with a tax return or voter ID card.

If you don't have one you have limitless time to get the other.

It's right here in the Constitution:

Quote:The... Manner of holding Elections... shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations...

A state's right to regulate who can vote is not explicitly mentioned beyond what I just quoted. As I explained to you, your original quote from Article 1 Section 2 just says those who are qualified to vote in elections for the largest chamber of a state's legislature may vote in congressional elections as well. In other words, just that they're the same -- it doesn't guarantee to states the power to decide who is qualified. By the same token, it doesn't prohibit the federal government from deciding who is or isn't qualified to vote in elections for the largest chamber of a state's legislature.

Of course anything in the constitution can be amended.

(12-29-2011 12:01 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:43 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote.

Exactly. Now, what's your proposal to determine that?

Bump.

Until you've answered Rebel's question, you haven't answered mine.

(12-29-2011 09:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 12:01 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 11:43 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2011 06:55 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  What's really crazy is this false choice between election security and disenfranchising voters. We can make elections more secure and preserve voting rights if we approach the problem correctly; but GOPers aren't interested in ways of making elections more secure if it doesn't include disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters. Of course that is because they aren't really interested in the former, only the latter.

And what, pray tell, is your fantastic solution?

It starts with the notion that every American over 18 years old should be able to vote.

Exactly. Now, what's your proposal to determine that?

Bump.

Until you've answered Rebel's question, you haven't answered mine.

Neither one of you have stated that you are committed the the notion that every American of legal age should be able to vote. In fact, Rebel has stated in the past that he supports significant constraints on voting rights. How about you?

(12-29-2011 10:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Neither one of you have stated that you are committed the the notion that every American of legal age should be able to vote. In fact, Rebel has stated in the past that he supports significant constraints on voting rights. How about you?

If by "American" you mean "US citizen" and a resident of the state in which they wish to vote, then I have no problem. I understand prohibitions against mentally incompetent and convicted felons and the like in various states, and I don't feel strongly either way on those.

But in general, I don't disagree with the concept.

(12-29-2011 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Neither one of you have stated that you are committed the the notion that every American of legal age should be able to vote. In fact, Rebel has stated in the past that he supports significant constraints on voting rights. How about you?

If by "American" you mean "US citizen" and a resident of the state in which they wish to vote, then I have no problem. I understand prohibitions against mentally incompetent and convicted felons and the like in various states, and I don't feel strongly either way on those.

But in general, I don't disagree with the concept.

But it also sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with restictions on voting rights. Is that true?

(12-27-2011 07:41 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  I have to give it to ACORN. They know how to gum up the system. Submitting an incorrect registration for a nonexistent person say "Mickey Mouse" is not illegal. You submit a registration on a real person giving their DOB etc at an incorrect address-- that is criminal registration fraud.

The Mickey Mouse registrations are just smoke to allow the frauds to get through.

Registration fraud is a Misdermeanor. It does not become a felony until you use it to actually vote. It is practally impossible to catch this type of crime. No one verifies information on a registration card, including citizenship.

(12-30-2011 02:44 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Neither one of you have stated that you are committed the the notion that every American of legal age should be able to vote. In fact, Rebel has stated in the past that he supports significant constraints on voting rights. How about you?

If by "American" you mean "US citizen" and a resident of the state in which they wish to vote, then I have no problem. I understand prohibitions against mentally incompetent and convicted felons and the like in various states, and I don't feel strongly either way on those.
But in general, I don't disagree with the concept.

But it also sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with restrictions on voting rights. Is that true?

Why don't you read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth?

Do you believe the mentally incompetent should be able to vote? What about convicted felons?

(12-30-2011 08:14 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 02:44 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2011 10:37 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Neither one of you have stated that you are committed the the notion that every American of legal age should be able to vote. In fact, Rebel has stated in the past that he supports significant constraints on voting rights. How about you?

If by "American" you mean "US citizen" and a resident of the state in which they wish to vote, then I have no problem. I understand prohibitions against mentally incompetent and convicted felons and the like in various states, and I don't feel strongly either way on those.
But in general, I don't disagree with the concept.

But it also sounds like you wouldn't have a problem with restrictions on voting rights. Is that true?

Why don't you read what I wrote instead of putting words in my mouth?

Do you believe the mentally incompetent should be able to vote? What about convicted felons?

I did read your lukewarm response, and the tone of that response makes it seem as though you aren't really committed to universal voting rights. Outside of the mentally ill and convicted felons, do you support the right to vote for everyone else? Do you think that is an important goal? Or are you a typical rightie who has no problem throwing up barriers, roadbloacks, and hurdles to voting so long as they hurt Democratic-leaning voters more than GOPer voters?

(12-30-2011 02:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Outside of the mentally ill and convicted felons, do you support the right to vote for everyone else?

I do, but there are rules such as residency, etc. Having to prove elligibility doesn't take away your right to vote; I'd argue it ensures it.

ID is NO roadblock for ANYONE. You can repeat your old tired mantra all you like, it's simply not true.

(12-30-2011 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID is NO roadblock for ANYONE. You can repeat your old tired mantra all you like, it's simply not true.

This....To claim otherwise make one look like f'g idiot.

(12-30-2011 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID is NO roadblock for ANYONE. You can repeat your old tired mantra all you like, it's simply not true.

Except Paul when the requirements necessary to obtain that ID are such that someone can't obtain it!

You can continue to deny it all you want but IT IS happening!

http://www.peoplesworld.org/84-year-old-...-poll-tax/

(12-30-2011 02:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I did read your lukewarm response, and the tone of that response makes it seem as though you aren't really committed to universal voting rights. Outside of the mentally ill and convicted felons, do you support the right to vote for everyone else? Do you think that is an important goal? Or are you a typical rightie who has no problem throwing up barriers, roadbloacks, and hurdles to voting so long as they hurt Democratic-leaning voters more than GOPer voters?

I would like to discuss this issue, but if you are going to discuss it with me, you are going to have to show a lot more maturity and respect for the opinions of others than are reflected in that post.

Apologize for your rudeness, answer my questions, quit putting words into my mouth that are not mine, and we can go from there. I doubt very seriously that you are sufficiently mature to be able to handle that.

UM, I'd also like to ask you a serious question, but let me set it up. i say we have voter ID cards so there is no question who should be allowed to vote and that makes sense to me and most on this board.

But you don't want any voter ID card, so does that mean you're ok with anyone walking off the street pulling a lever or does someone stand at the door and decide who looks like or doesn't look like a legal voter?

Are there other options other than catering to those who chose not to go get an ID card?

(12-30-2011 05:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 02:33 PM)Paul M Wrote:  ID is NO roadblock for ANYONE. You can repeat your old tired mantra all you like, it's simply not true.

Except Paul when the requirements necessary to obtain that ID are such that someone can't obtain it!

You can continue to deny it all you want but IT IS happening!

http://www.peoplesworld.org/84-year-old-...-poll-tax/

How much do you want to wager that this will be straightened out? As with almost every issue (both liberal and conservative) the extreme examples are used to try and push an agenda. There is nothing here that can't be easily ironed out and should be. That does however not make the policy of voter ID less valid as a tool to make the voting process more transparent. If she is denied the ability to vote, it is the fault of bureaucrats and fools...not the voter ID law.

(12-30-2011 05:18 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 02:28 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I did read your lukewarm response, and the tone of that response makes it seem as though you aren't really committed to universal voting rights. Outside of the mentally ill and convicted felons, do you support the right to vote for everyone else? Do you think that is an important goal? Or are you a typical rightie who has no problem throwing up barriers, roadbloacks, and hurdles to voting so long as they hurt Democratic-leaning voters more than GOPer voters?

I would like to discuss this issue, but if you are going to discuss it with me, you are going to have to show a lot more maturity and respect for the opinions of others than are reflected in that post.

Apologize for your rudeness, answer my questions, quit putting words into my mouth that are not mine, and we can go from there. I doubt very seriously that you are sufficiently mature to be able to handle that.

It's clear that you don't want to discuss the issue and that you'll use whatever excuse you can to slink away. If you're really that thin-skinned, then you're wasting my time.

(12-30-2011 10:23 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It's clear that you don't want to discuss the issue and that you'll use whatever excuse you can to slink away. If you're really that thin-skinned, then you're wasting my time.

If all you're going to do is behave like a jerk and add nothing of value to the conversation, then I don't want to discuss any issue with you. Nor should anyone else. Sounds like we both have better uses for our time than for you to engage in, and me to put up with, your childish antics. When you grow up, perhaps we can have further discussions.

(12-30-2011 10:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-30-2011 10:23 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It's clear that you don't want to discuss the issue and that you'll use whatever excuse you can to slink away. If you're really that thin-skinned, then you're wasting my time.

If all you're going to do is behave like a jerk and add nothing of value to the conversation, then I don't want to discuss any issue with you. Nor should anyone else. Sounds like we both have better uses for our time than for you to engage in, and me to put up with, your childish antics. When you grow up, perhaps we can have further discussions.

Let me know when you stop being a coward.

UM Grad needs to acquaint himself with the sordid story of "Houston Votes".. an organization whose leaders were affiliated with SEIU and ACORN Voter Registration Manipulation efforts in Nevada and elsewhere.

Turns out that over 5000 of the voter registrations submitted in Harris County by the "Houston Votes" bozos were invalid because of (1) the person signed up didn't exist (2) the person signed up was not eligible to vote because they were not a US citizen or (3) the identifying information could not be verified in terms of name, address, or date of birth.

One of the organizers of "Houston Votes" is Maria Isabel, the former supervisor of a Barack Obama campaign office in Houston. This office was infamous for the Cuban Flags and Che Guevara posters tacked up alongside those of Barack Obama.

Isabel is also the person who brought the infamous Roxana Mayer to a Sheila Jackson Lee Town Hall meeting held during the height of the Health Care Reform debates. At the Town Hall Roxana Mayer then pretended to be a Doctor in front of news media cameras, specifically representing herself as a Primary Care Physician and spoke in support of ObamaCare.

This Wild Goose chase in sorting out the bogus registrations cost Harris County thousands of dollars.

UMGrad, shouldn't "Houston Votes" (whose members by the way constitute a portion of the riff-raff of "Occupy Houston") be required to compensate Harris County for their bogus and frivolous efforts?

See Isabel and Mayer here

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/Monarch/W...leID=34087