The DOJ Truly Serves At The Pleasure of the President

[dbucfan]

1.  Non registered or improper voters and attempts to arrange for same - see Acorn
2.  Show up with proof of residency, and identification and it gets a lot harder
3.  Same harm as is incurred at the airport.

There's enough there in the wee little post Durango, and we didn't even go into the dead voting in Chicago - plus the added benefit that if it is too tough to register properly - as opposed to much of the other nonsense - then maybe you shouldn't be voting. 

[Biggs3535]

I'd be glad to look over any proof you have of massive voter fraud in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

There is plenty of proof fraud in regard to elections.  But for some reason you're attempting to separate voter registration fraud from voter fraud, which is akin to separating attempted murder from murder.  The intent is the same for each crime.

Also, more on the evil ACORN...

Is that the same evil ACORN that had it's Federal Funds yanked?  Or the ACORN where affiliates across the nation changed their name because they didn't want to be associated with said group?

Poor ACORN gets such a bad wrap from big, meanie Conservatives.

[Durango 95]

1.  Non registered or improper voters and attempts to arrange for same - see Acorn
2.  Show up with proof of residency, and identification and it gets a lot harder
3.  Same harm as is incurred at the airport.

There's enough there in the wee little post Durango, and we didn't even go into the dead voting in Chicago - plus the added benefit that if it is too tough to register properly - as opposed to much of the other nonsense - then maybe you shouldn't be voting.

None of that controvert the numbers.

You keep trotting out these dubious claims and antidotal instances of what you perceive to be voter fraud but the reality is you have nothing. Oddly enough despite the assumption of you and Vin I am not opposed to the idea of bolstering the integrity of our elections but the failure of you or anyone to present any reliable evidence of voter fraud causes a massive failure in your proposition. Then I still have not heard how this Voter ID stuff will eliminate this perceived fraud and if and how it will do no damage to other voters.

Which tells me this is about something else.

[CBWx2]

I'd be glad to look over any proof you have of massive voter fraud in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

There is plenty of proof fraud in regard to elections.  But for some reason you're attempting to separate voter registration fraud from voter fraud, which is akin to separating attempted murder from murder.  The intent is the same for each crime.

That's quite the horrible analogy there, Biggs. The reason I am separating voter registration fraud with voter fraud is because they are two separate things entirely. The ID cards are a means to stop voter fraud. Please explain to me how they would stop registration fraud, which at this point, is the only viable accusation being levied?

Furthermore, in order for your murder/attempted murder analogy to be true, there must have been evidence of some consorted effort for the fraudulently registered voters to actually show up and cast votes on election day. There is none. In fact, the evidence suggests quite the opposite. The fraudulent registration forms were actually submitted by workers who simply filled out fake forms in order to get paid for work that they didn't do. The way to nip that in the bud would be simply to outlaw the practice of paying people to register voters.

Also, the reason that the voter registration fraud came to light is because the registration forms were vetted long before the election actually took place. In otherwords, the same system that is supposedly broken is the one that actually caught the fraudulent signatures in the first place and removed the fake names from the rolls. So if anyone had actually tried to vote under any of the fraudulent names, they wouldn't have been allowed to. Crisis averted, and without the need for any additional voting restrictions put in place. Imagine that...

[dbucfan]

There is little need to controvert the numbers - if for no other reason than security there should be minimal verification.  If you want I will play the silly game of asking you to prove the negative - i.e. prove that suspected voter fraud hasn't had an impact on any local, municipal, state or federal elections.  Stupid isn't it.

But you are basically arguing the election of officials and the voting on issues shouldn't be as protected as say a driver's license, or getting on an airplane.  And my friend I will always disagree with that.  At this point  you are looking at providing a photo identification or perhaps an id card.  Like you would have to drive a car.  On either your license or perhaps your proof of insurance. 

There is no adverse impact - which tells me you are looking for something that doesn't exist.  Well - perhaps I am assuming too much, perhaps the driver's license or the proof of insurance is unreasonable to you.  Hadn't thought of that until just now. 

[Durango 95]

There is little need to controvert the numbers - if for no other reason than security there should be minimal verification.  If you want I will play the silly game of asking you to prove the negative - i.e. prove that suspected voter fraud hasn't had an impact on any local, municipal, state or federal elections.  Stupid isn't it.

But you are basically arguing the election of officials and the voting on issues shouldn't be as protected as say a driver's license, or getting on an airplane.  And my friend I will always disagree with that.  At this point  you are looking at providing a photo identification or perhaps an id card.  Like you would have to drive a car.  On either your license or perhaps your proof of insurance. 

There is no adverse impact - which tells me you are looking for something that doesn't exist.  Well - perhaps I am assuming too much, perhaps the driver's license or the proof of insurance is unreasonable to you.  Hadn't thought of that until just now.

If you want this to happen then it's perfectly reasonable for you to show a need for the change and how this Voter ID will help. Hell man just show that and I think  people would jump on board. Frankly w/ o that this sounds like another layer of unnecessary government involvement.

[VinBucFan]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

That was a weak CBW response.

 If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?

Here's your chance to show of your intellectual honesty . .

1)Show me evidence of non registered voters or improper voters and how that has helped one party over the other.

2) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will result in eliminating that.

3) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will do no harm to voters.

You want the change, now let's see your justification.

wow, was not expecting a non-response response form you.

[CBWx2]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

That was a weak CBW response.

 If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?

Here's your chance to show of your intellectual honesty . .

1)Show me evidence of non registered voters or improper voters and how that has helped one party over the other.

2) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will result in eliminating that.

3) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will do no harm to voters.

You want the change, now let's see your justification.

wow, was not expecting a non-response response form you.

How is asking for evidence a non-response? The only person that would consider being asked for proof as a non-response is someone who has none.

[VinBucFan]

The reason I am separating voter registration fraud with voter fraud is because they are two separate things entirely.

Lol at that^^^  I posted this prediction at 9:45:

"The whole ACORN thing . .  oh wait, let me do CBW for you "registration (ACORN) is not "voting" . . .  lol"


The BLACK HOLE is very, very very predictable

[dbucfan]

There is little need to controvert the numbers - if for no other reason than security there should be minimal verification.  If you want I will play the silly game of asking you to prove the negative - i.e. prove that suspected voter fraud hasn't had an impact on any local, municipal, state or federal elections.  Stupid isn't it.

But you are basically arguing the election of officials and the voting on issues shouldn't be as protected as say a driver's license, or getting on an airplane.  And my friend I will always disagree with that.  At this point  you are looking at providing a photo identification or perhaps an id card.  Like you would have to drive a car.  On either your license or perhaps your proof of insurance. 

There is no adverse impact - which tells me you are looking for something that doesn't exist.  Well - perhaps I am assuming too much, perhaps the driver's license or the proof of insurance is unreasonable to you.  Hadn't thought of that until just now.

If you want this to happen then it's perfectly reasonable for you to show a need for the change and how this Voter ID will help. Hell man just show that and I think  people would jump on board. Frankly w/ o that this sounds like another layer of unnecessary government involvement.

What do you need to happen?  You need a group like Acorn or other organizers to succeed?  This is nothing like another level of government as the structure exists.  If you need someone to do the work -give it to the Department of Energy.  They haven't hit a goal since inception - maybe this is the one they can get done.  But don't give them more employees - they should be able to get by with what they have.

[VinBucFan]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

That was a weak CBW response.

 If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?

Here's your chance to show of your intellectual honesty . .

1)Show me evidence of non registered voters or improper voters and how that has helped one party over the other.

2) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will result in eliminating that.

3) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will do no harm to voters.

You want the change, now let's see your justification.

wow, was not expecting a non-response response form you.

How is asking for evidence a non-response? The only person that would consider being asked for proof as a non-response is someone who has none.

This was my very simple question.:

" If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?


The response was not an answer it was a question.  You know a thing or two CBW about that game . . .

[Durango 95]

It's not an issue of voter fraud which the numbers clearly demonstrate it's simply an attempt at voter suppression which benefits one political party in particular.

Hmm, doesn't that mean that anti "suppression" helps the other political party in particular?

There is no such thing as anti suppression either it exists or it doesn't.

Regardless, suppression has no role in a healthy political environment.

Suppression against one damages the whole.

That was a weak CBW response.

 If you claim that one political party is engaging in "suppresion" by supporting voter ID laws, that means by defintiion that the other party is promoting "anti-suppression" (i.e., voting by non-registered or improper voters) by opposing voter ID laws, right?

Here's your chance to show of your intellectual honesty . .

1)Show me evidence of non registered voters or improper voters and how that has helped one party over the other.

2) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will result in eliminating that.

3) Show evidence of how the implementation of Voter ID will do no harm to voters.

You want the change, now let's see your justification.

wow, was not expecting a non-response response form you.

Your silly hyperbole has run its course and as much as I hate to use this worn out phrase you have left me w/ no choice.

Your surrender has been noted.

For crying out loud all I was asking for was you to show why this Voter ID was a good idea I didn't expect you to turn into some Threepenny opera.

[CBWx2]

The reason I am separating voter registration fraud with voter fraud is because they are two separate things entirely.

Lol at that^^^  I posted this prediction at 9:45:

"The whole ACORN thing . .  oh wait, let me do CBW for you "registration (ACORN) is not "voting" . . .  lol"


The BLACK HOLE is very, very very predictable

No, what's predictable is you picking a single sentence out of a 3 paragraph long response in which it was already explained and labeling it a "black hole" comment. The next time you try to accuse anyone of being intellectually dishonest, you will be doing nothing more than further cementing your label as the MB's biggest hypocrite.

Be honest, the reason you preemptively pointed that out is because you are fully aware that registering to vote is not voting, and that there is already safeguards in place to ensure that fraudulent voter registration forms are removed from the voter rolls. The fact is, the registration angle is the only thing even remotely resembling evidence that you or anyone else can come up with, and I'm sure you are fully aware of the deficiencies in taking that angle, counselor. And if you're not, you should try reading the rest of my previous post that you opted to purposely leave out of your intellectually dishonest response.

[dbucfan]

Durango - we have all seen one organization go to very great lengths to 'organize' and 'get out the vote' in the last Presidential election.  They got caught - one wonders how many illegal or improper votes took place - the DOJ did not investigate.  So perhaps a better process is in order.  One that at least takes some thought to get around would be a nice starting point.

[Durango 95]

There is little need to controvert the numbers - if for no other reason than security there should be minimal verification.  If you want I will play the silly game of asking you to prove the negative - i.e. prove that suspected voter fraud hasn't had an impact on any local, municipal, state or federal elections.  Stupid isn't it.

But you are basically arguing the election of officials and the voting on issues shouldn't be as protected as say a driver's license, or getting on an airplane.  And my friend I will always disagree with that.  At this point  you are looking at providing a photo identification or perhaps an id card.  Like you would have to drive a car.  On either your license or perhaps your proof of insurance. 

There is no adverse impact - which tells me you are looking for something that doesn't exist.  Well - perhaps I am assuming too much, perhaps the driver's license or the proof of insurance is unreasonable to you.  Hadn't thought of that until just now.

If you want this to happen then it's perfectly reasonable for you to show a need for the change and how this Voter ID will help. Hell man just show that and I think  people would jump on board. Frankly w/ o that this sounds like another layer of unnecessary government involvement.

What do you need to happen? 

For you to show a need and demonstrate why Voter ID will help.

I'm against more government involvement and I'm against needless bureaucracy.

Those are supposed to be conservative traits.