PDA

View Full Version : Holder's Justice Department


cj's dad
03-14-2012, 10:16 AM
Strikes again.

So, it's prejudicial to ask for picture I.D. prior to casting a vote even though the law applies to EVERYONE.
Why is it not prejudicial to ask everyone to produce picture ID when attempting to board an airplane ?

Link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-03-12/texas-voter-identification-law-is-blocked-by-justice-department-as-biased.html

Tom
03-14-2012, 10:25 AM
Don't you need a photo ID to register in the first place?
What did they all do, lose theirs?

HUSKER55
03-14-2012, 10:44 AM
I have been told that unions are against this so they can import "citizens" on voting days.

I say we should finger print everyone that votes and run it thru the crime databases instead. That way it could be done where they vote while standing in line.

ElKabong
03-15-2012, 08:17 AM
Only the Obama administration could make Rick Perry look sharp and competent.....

So let me get this straight....In order to board a plane, you have to show a photo ID. But in order to vote in elections for legislative leadership, you don't.

ElKabong
03-15-2012, 08:21 AM
I have been told that unions are against this so they can import "citizens" on voting days.

.

That's the thinking. Newstalk radio here is saying exactly that. The only hope Obama has here is to slide in some fake votes. If Obama carries TX, he's not going to lose the election.

In a fair election, Obama doesn't stand a chance here. Their thinking is, if Romney is the candidate it might get within 3 points. If the turnout is low that opens the door for beard voters to make the difference

Mike at A+
03-15-2012, 09:32 AM
I heard an explanation long ago why Democrats oppose photo-IDs for voting and it's hilarious. They claim that it discriminates against minorities who would be afraid to show up at the voting polls because they may "look like" or have a name "sounding similar" to someone who has an outstanding arrest warrant.

Robert Goren
03-15-2012, 09:40 AM
People voting who aren't suppose haven't been a very big problem in the past. Stuffing ballot boxes by election officals has been from time to time. Mis handling ballot boxes and people votes not being count as a result has been a bigger problem. The biggest problem has been keeping people from voting. It has been done over and over again from the various things southern states did to keep Blacks from voting to latest stunt tried by Florida of making list of convicted felons and making voters proved that they weren't the person with the same name on the list (how do you prove that on the spur of the moment?). They only did it for minority precincts. Lets face it. No white male is ever going to asked for an ID in order to vote anywhere. It is a minority whose going to have produce one. I have voted in almost every election since I was old enough to vote. Never once was asked for an ID. Never once was my name checked against a convicted felons list. I have run for public office. I wasn't asked an ID. I wasn't checked to see if I had the name of a Felon. I am a white male, so they don't ask.

Tom
03-15-2012, 09:43 AM
There is no excuse for not requiring valid ID from every single person who votes. If you are a polling person and your mother shows up, you turn away if she hasn't got the proper ID. Simple - the right to vote is precious - treat it that way.

cj's dad
03-15-2012, 10:12 AM
Once again, the Detective misses the point. The Texas law requires EVERYONE to show proper photo ID-EVERYONE. If EVERYONE has to provide acceptable ID, than it stands to reason, i.e. common sense, that the law cannot be DISCRIMINATORY.

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 12:14 PM
So let me get this straight....In order to board a plane, you have to show a photo ID. But in order to vote in elections for legislative leadership, you don't.

You probably need a picture ID to fly one too. So what? Lots of people have never been on an airplane.

Any party that seeks to restrict voter turnout is un-American. It's as simple as that.

Any party that prays for lousy weather to reduce voter turnout is laughable.

You want exclusivity - join a country club.

bigmack
03-15-2012, 12:24 PM
Any party that seeks to restrict voter turnout is un-American. It's as simple as that.
Judging by your number of responses on the subject, it's clearly a 'hot button issue' for ya.

Is there ANYTHING we can ask of a voter, you know, like proving they are who they say they are, that would pass the acid test for you, without this ridiculous notion you have of 'restricting' voters?

If a poor 19 year old went in to buy booze without an ID, is the shop owner 'restricting' them? How 'bout if they wanted to enter a bar. How 'bout 54 other examples?

I know you adore Ezra Klein, watch MSNBC, read the NYTimes & WaPo, but don't forget to actually stop every now and again to think about the idiocy they insist you believe.

Steve 'StatMan'
03-15-2012, 12:29 PM
I'm a white male and I was asked for a photo ID where I last voted, a mostly white NW suburb of Chicago. It was either in 2008 or 2004.

bigmack
03-15-2012, 12:34 PM
I'm a white male and I was asked for a photo ID where I last voted, a mostly white NW suburb of Chicago. It was either in 2008 or 2004.
How is that possible? Goren said that wouldn't happen in a million years?

Then, he also states that 100% of Nebraskans are racist.

I'm starting to get an idea of where Goren spends most of his time thinking.

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Random/head_up_ass.jpg

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 12:44 PM
Is there ANYTHING we can ask of a voter, you know, like proving they are who they say they are, that would pass the acid test for you, without this ridiculous notion you have of 'restricting' voters?

If a poor 19 year old went in to buy booze without an ID, is the shop owner 'restricting' them? How 'bout if they wanted to enter a bar. How 'bout 54 other examples?

I know you adore Ezra Klein, watch MSNBC, read the NYTimes & WaPo, but don't forget to actually stop every now and again to think about the idiocy they insist you believe.

In NJ we have the alleged perp sign his/her name at the voting booth. The signature is compared to the signature on file with NJ Division of Elections right at the voting booth. If it matches, you get to cast a vote. Simple and effective. And requires no ID.

Doesn't have anything to do with a 19 year old buying booze. Although I will say I believe 19 years olds should have the right to buy booze.

As for the last paragraph, my good man Ezra is over 21 and can vote and buy booze on his way home. :ThmbUp:

bigmack
03-15-2012, 12:50 PM
And requires no ID.
You ARE aware that anyone who doesn't have an ID would be afforded every opportunity to get one, FREE OF CHARGE, WITH transportation, if they wish?

In light of that, remind us again of the restrictive nature of this legislation?

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 12:52 PM
You ARE aware that anyone who doesn't have an ID would be afforded every opportunity to get one, FREE OF CHARGE, WITH transportation, if they wish?

In light of that, remind us again of the restrictive nature of this legislation?

Do they have to get on an airplane to enjoy this fabulous perk? :lol:

Tom
03-15-2012, 01:20 PM
Originally Posted by NJ Stinks
Any party that seeks to restrict voter turnout is un-American. It's as simple as that.


BS. Pure BS.
As an American, I want to restrict voter turnout to other AMERICANS, who are legally registered to vote. Your argument is so ignorant, it is not worth addressing, but I will. :rolleyes:

As American, it is our responsibility to identify ourselves in order to vote. NO ONE can legitimately use the excuse that they have no photo ID.

Do you support allowing anyone to register to vote without ID?


Do they have to get on an airplane to enjoy this fabulous perk? :lol: You have nothing. Who are you, Snookie?

BlueShoe
03-15-2012, 02:10 PM
Yeah, it discriminates all right; it discriminates against criminals. Non citizens, convicted felons, and deceased persons are not allowed to cast a ballot. As expected, the lefties are playing the race card again, saying that voter ID discriminates against minorities, the poor, and the elderly, the usual liberal drivel. Many examples of how showing ID is routinely required. For example, in a couple of weeks am going on a trip. Before being allowed to check into the hotels in which I intend to stay in I must present a picture ID, no exceptions. Just using a credit card alone is not enough. If I dont like it can either sleep in my car or the park. The left's objection to voter ID is political, voter fraud is not rare. The ones voting that should not be voting are almost always voting for Democrats, thus the crocodile tears about their so called concern.

JustRalph
03-15-2012, 02:30 PM
Stop making so much sense!!!

Yeah, it discriminates all right; it discriminates against criminals. Non citizens, convicted felons, and deceased persons are not allowed to cast a ballot. As expected, the lefties are playing the race card again, saying that voter ID discriminates against minorities, the poor, and the elderly, the usual liberal drivel. Many examples of how showing ID is routinely required. For example, in a couple of weeks am going on a trip. Before being allowed to check into the hotels in which I intend to stay in I must present a picture ID, no exceptions. Just using a credit card alone is not enough. If I dont like it can either sleep in my car or the park. The left's objection to voter ID is political, voter fraud is not rare. The ones voting that should not be voting are almost always voting for Democrats, thus the crocodile tears about their so called concern.

badcompany
03-15-2012, 04:47 PM
You probably need a picture ID to fly one too. So what? Lots of people have never been on an airplane.

Any party that seeks to restrict voter turnout is un-American. It's as simple as that.

Any party that prays for lousy weather to reduce voter turnout is laughable.

You want exclusivity - join a country club.

So, let's get this straight. You worked for an organization that requires everyone to submit a painfully detailed account of their financial lives, but you're against people having to show ID to vote?:eek:

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 05:02 PM
Yeah, it discriminates all right; it discriminates against criminals. Non citizens, convicted felons, and deceased persons are not allowed to cast a ballot. As expected, the lefties are playing the race card again, saying that voter ID discriminates against minorities, the poor, and the elderly, the usual liberal drivel. Many examples of how showing ID is routinely required. For example, in a couple of weeks am going on a trip. Before being allowed to check into the hotels in which I intend to stay in I must present a picture ID, no exceptions. Just using a credit card alone is not enough. If I dont like it can either sleep in my car or the park. The left's objection to voter ID is political, voter fraud is not rare. The ones voting that should not be voting are almost always voting for Democrats, thus the crocodile tears about their so called concern.

Hey, Blueshoe, guess what they say in NJ when the deceased tries to enter the voting booth?

"CLEAR THE WAY. DEAD MAN WALKING!" :p

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 05:09 PM
So, let's get this straight. You worked for an organization that requires everyone to submit a painfully detailed account of their financial lives, but you're against people having to show ID to vote?:eek:

In certain situations we also accepted oral testimony. ;)

johnhannibalsmith
03-15-2012, 05:12 PM
In certain situations we also accepted oral testimony. ;)

Known to G-men knuckleheads as the "Clinton Exception".

badcompany
03-15-2012, 05:26 PM
In certain situations we also accepted oral testimony. ;)

LOL

I think this year I'm gonna go with the Lady Gaga technique of getting wasted before mailing them a check.:(

boxcar
03-15-2012, 06:41 PM
You probably need a picture ID to fly one too. So what? Lots of people have never been on an airplane.

Lots of people don't vote either. So what's your point?

Any party that seeks to restrict voter turnout is un-American. It's as simple as that.

Explain how an I.D. requirement would be restricting turnout? For those who want to vote, they play by rules.

Why would any political party want to risk compromising the integrity of the voting process and risk disenfranchising or negating honest people's votes? A party that would want to do that is very UN-AMERICAN!

Boxcar

Tom
03-15-2012, 08:35 PM
Lots of people don't vote either. So what's your point?

I think it is the same racist point most liberals share - Hispanics are too stupid to get an ID. Or lazy. Which is it, NJ? Obviously, you think Hispanics are unable to function, so you have to help them - they cannot get by without you superior lefties taking care of them.

Guess what, it it ain't so.

Here's a thought- anyone not able to get ID in this day and age is not FIT to vote. I have faith that minorities are more than capable of taking care of themselves, including the daunting task of obtaining ID.

ElKabong
03-15-2012, 08:49 PM
in 2010 i had produce a photo ID at the polling place....painless....i don't see what the big deal is.

oh wait, yes i do....that would prevent people that cannot vote (felons for example) from voting......we're talking democrats wetting the floor to ensure they get as many votes as possible...that means illegal voting is ok by them

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 09:58 PM
Here's a thought- anyone not able to get ID in this day and age is not FIT to vote....

What's that, Archie? :p

cj's dad
03-15-2012, 10:12 PM
What's that, Archie? :p

Hey NJ; you gotta admit, the defense of this is really pointless. Americans need ID for everything from liquor and tobacco sales to driving a car to flying to registering TO VOTE. What's the big deal ??? This isn't the 40's-50's any longer. Produce your ID and move on. No ID, no vote.

And, once again this law applies to EVERYONE, so ergo it CANNOT BE BIASED.

BlueShoe
03-15-2012, 10:23 PM
Hey, Blueshoe, guess what they say in NJ when the deceased tries to enter the voting booth?

Here comes another good Democrat?

bigmack
03-15-2012, 10:29 PM
The reason NJ has moved into a 'make light of' mode is because he's unable to lodge any defense after learning anyone wanting free ID can get it.

Fact is, he's been so programmed into thinking it was being unfair to people through his 'news' sources, he decided to parrot them here. While they're able to say outlandish things without a counter argument, NJ is and stands little chance of anything noteworthy.

Why do you think Mosty hasn't a presence in this thread? Uphill battle.

Perfect job for a rube like NJ. :rolleyes:

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 11:06 PM
The reason NJ has moved into a 'make light of' mode is because he's unable to lodge any defense after learning anyone wanting free ID can get it.

Fact is, he's been so programmed into thinking it was being unfair to people through his 'news' sources, he decided to parrot them here. While they're able to say outlandish things without a counter argument, NJ is and stands little chance of anything noteworthy.

Why do you think Mosty hasn't a presence in this thread? Uphill battle.

Perfect job for a rube like NJ. :rolleyes:

Thank you, Dr. Frankenstein.

Here's the thing, CJ's Dad. The system we have in New Jersey works well with no ID required. (The potential voter signs his/her name at the voting booth. The signature is compared to the signature on file with NJ Division of Elections right at the voting booth. If it matches, you get to cast a vote.)

No need for somebody who doesn't drive or fly or whatever to produce a government ID.

Let's face it. If Republicans felt they benefited from not requiring ID's, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

And Tom, this has nothing to do with race IMO. It's more like you thinking there is a big problem with voting here and I don't.

johnhannibalsmith
03-15-2012, 11:11 PM
...
Let's face it. If Republicans felt they benefited from not requiring ID's, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
...

Okay, but can we also face that if Democrats didn't stand to benefit from not requiring ID's our useless Justice Department wouldn't be doing the DNC's dirty work?

bigmack
03-15-2012, 11:16 PM
Let's face it. If Republicans felt they benefited from not requiring ID's, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The reason we're having this discussion is outlined in the title of the thread.

You ARE aware legislation has been passed in many states requiring ID and passed muster with the Supremes 6-3. That's 6-3.

And here we have Holder & you thinking you stand a chance of forming a compelling argument against TX?

That's some funny shit.

Holder's doing it for political reasons to pander to HisPanics.

Your reason is mental ineptitude.

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 11:30 PM
Okay, but can we also face that if Democrats didn't stand to benefit from not requiring ID's our useless Justice Department wouldn't be doing the DNC's dirty work?

Yes.

For sure if GWB was in power, we wouldn't here a peep from the justice department.

bigmack
03-15-2012, 11:32 PM
we wouldn't here a peep from the justice department.
As in, here a peep, there a peep, everywhere a peep, peep?

NJ Stinks
03-15-2012, 11:35 PM
Your reason is mental ineptitude.

Mack, I don't think you have ever been as kind to me as you have in the sentence above. :cool:

Romney must really be looking good.

johnhannibalsmith
03-15-2012, 11:46 PM
Yes.

For sure if GWB was in power, we wouldn't here a peep from the justice department.

I shouldn't bother playing this courtroom game where I need to rephrase to get a direct answer, but...

Which political party, Republican or Democrat, do you think is more likely to benefit from the support of voters that are not actually eligible to vote?

NJ Stinks
03-16-2012, 01:15 AM
I shouldn't bother playing this courtroom game where I need to rephrase to get a direct answer, but...

Which political party, Republican or Democrat, do you think is more likely to benefit from the support of voters that are not actually eligible to vote?

Sorry I wasn't clear. Democrats will benefit more.

Nobody really wants to vote Republican if they can help it. :p

johnhannibalsmith
03-16-2012, 01:27 AM
...

Nobody really wants to vote Republican if they can help it. :p

There's probably a hint of truth there if you replaced the word "nobody" with something a bit less absolute, but you Democrats can't help but make it seem like a lesser evil every time you start actually legislating.

cj's dad
03-19-2012, 02:25 PM
Here's the thing, CJ's Dad. The system we have in New Jersey works well with no ID required. (The potential voter signs his/her name at the voting booth. The signature is compared to the signature on file with NJ Division of Elections right at the voting booth. If it matches, you get to cast a vote.)

I went back and reread your comments (bolded) and I think that if you are honest about it, you will realize that what you are offering, that no I.D. is required, is exactly the opposite. Your signature is your I.D. in this case. As you posted, If it matches, you get to cast a vote. The difference between Texas and N.J. is merely a matter of how ID is produced.

NJ Stinks
03-19-2012, 06:40 PM
I went back and reread your comments (bolded) and I think that if you are honest about it, you will realize that what you are offering, that no I.D. is required, is exactly the opposite. Your signature is your I.D. in this case. As you posted, If it matches, you get to cast a vote. The difference between Texas and N.J. is merely a matter of how ID is produced.

I agree that my signature is my ID in NJ. I don't know what Texas accepted as an ID before passing the photo ID law.

Tom
03-19-2012, 11:00 PM
What ID is required to get the signature on file to begin with?