New Wisconsin voter ID Law

[Doer]

Florida - On Mar. 9, 2011 the Florida rules of Executive Clemency were toughened. Automatic restoration of civil rights and the ability to vote will no longer be granted for any offenses. All individuals convicted of any felony will now have to apply for executive clemency after a five year waiting period. Individuals who are convicted, or who have previously been convicted, of certain felonies such as murder, assault, child abuse, drug trafficking, arson, etc. are subject to a seven year waiting period and a clemency board hearing to determine whether or not the ability to vote will be restored.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286#florida

NOPE

So, you are saying FL Governor's office did not send me a letter restoring my rights?

 

[Doer]

You do have to wait 5 years.

 

[Doer]

Try and stop me.

You are simply being judgmental. Not the same thing at all.

 

[NoDrama]

The more educated and wealthy you are, the more likely you are to vote. Also the more likely to own a State issued photo ID.

Does anyone smoke? You ever get ID'd to buy?

 

[Doer]

On, that video you can hear where the guy is getting intimidated. He said way too much, even stammered a bit at the end, almost asking permission. There is another way.

Officer: do you have an ID
me: yes
Officer: Let me see it
me: no
Officer: Why not?
me: I have no reason to.
Officer: me asking is not a reason?
me: no
Officer: well, what are you doing here?
me: I'm watching

The less you say the better, to these armed physiologists. One short answer is plenty if you add direct unbroken eye contact.

 

[Doer]

The more educated and wealthy you are, the more likely you are to vote. Also the more likely to own a State issued photo ID.

Does anyone smoke? You ever get ID'd to buy?

Voting is a right. You have to prove residency, is all.

 

[Doer]

And isn't that such a convenient interpretation of how the constitution should be used/abused/misinterpreted?

.

What are you saying, Canada? SCOTUS is not the convenient interpretation, it is the ONLY one.

 

[Doer]

Only according to your own selective interpretation. "Should" (or perhaps more importantly "shall not") is an important part of the verbiage of the constitution. Try not to misconstrue said verbiage to disparage the intent of the document.

It is not for you to say. Clear?

 

[Doer]

The Intent is exactly the job of SCOTUS, not you are your lay ideas.

 

[reasonevangelist]

The Intent is exactly the job of SCOTUS, not you are your lay ideas.

And when SCOTUS consists of non-judicious, biased, conflicting interest holding shills, it becomes OUR job to identify and correct this problem... but "they" have thought of that, and made it virtually impossible for anyone but themselves to do anything about it; which they obviously won't, because no usurper ever surrenders their claims to power willingly.

And yes, i am fully capable of discerning whether our "law" is construed in violation of the very self-evident truths we should hold dear.

In fact, i could (and perhaps should) argue that "the whole point of the constitution and bill of rights, was/is to protect the laymen from silver tongued power usurpers." That is, in fact, the very reasoning and purpose for including a "bill of rights" as part of the constitution. There was a historical debate over whether such a thing should even be necessary; some people thought it wasn't/shouldn't be necessary, while others insisted we needed to deliberately specify things the gov't shall not be allowed to do, because most mentally competent people do realize that the malicious will certainly twist any available verbiage as much and as well as they can, in order to justify the unjustifiable, and lay seemingly legitimate claims, to illegitimately claimed and then abused powers.

 

[Harrekin]

you cannot say what is invalid, Self rule protects us from you.

That's the single most moronic thing you've ever written.

Wasn't even gonna argue with you, but God damn that was stupid man.

 

[Doer]

And when SCOTUS consists of non-judicious, biased, conflicting interest holding shills, it becomes OUR job to identify and correct this problem... but "they" have thought of that, and made it virtually impossible for anyone but themselves to do anything about it; which they obviously won't, because no usurper ever surrenders their claims to power willingly.

And yes, i am fully capable of discerning whether our "law" is construed in violation of the very self-evident truths we should hold dear.

In fact, i could (and perhaps should) argue that "the whole point of the constitution and bill of rights, was/is to protect the laymen from silver tongued power usurpers." That is, in fact, the very reasoning and purpose for including a "bill of rights" as part of the constitution. There was a historical debate over whether such a thing should even be necessary; some people thought it wasn't/shouldn't be necessary, while others insisted we needed to deliberately specify things the gov't shall not be allowed to do, because most mentally competent people do realize that the malicious will certainly twist any available verbiage as much and as well as they can, in order to justify the unjustifiable, and lay seemingly legitimate claims, to illegitimately claimed and then abused powers.

Sound like you are barking at a tree or something.

 

[Doer]

That's the single most moronic thing you've ever written.

Wasn't even gonna argue with you, but God damn that was stupid man.

Well, yours is to call names and not discuss.

 

[reasonevangelist]

So, you hide?

I can't stop you from calling it that if you want, but i prefer to think of it more as "minimizing my chances for unwanted encounters."

It's pretty simple though: don't get seen doing suspicious shit, and people won't suspect you (of course this can be thoroughly scrutinized, and i'm sure plenty of people improperly or arbitrarily suspect various individuals for a variety of "reasons" which are not of sound judgment or basis, but i digress).

Let's simplify it even more: avoid all problems that can be avoided; try to solve the rest at the source, possibly by altering the source which produces said problem, in such a way as to prevent it from producing that problem again, but without modifying in any way which produces other equivalent or worse problems.

This attitude is part of what has kept me alive and spared me from the vast majority of unwanted potential consequences. I could probably expound indefinitely on this particular topic.

But when i was young, we just called it "staying out of trouble." I find it baffling that this seems so difficult for so many of the people i've encountered throughout my life. Some people seem compelled to do things which cause unwanted problems, both to themselves and others... and no amount of reasoning or explaining seems to have much effect. I guess people don't like listening to anyone unless they think they can gain something beneficial by doing so. But a problem is that too many people don't understand "better judgment," and don't understand how to choose appropriate judgment criteria, to act as the foundational basis for sound judgment. Some would learn, given the opportunity... but some people seem to agree that being a beast is easier than being a man, and so they run with that until something stops them.

 

[Doer]

I can't stop you from calling it that if you want, but i prefer to think of it more as "minimizing my chances for unwanted encounters."

It's pretty simple though: don't get seen doing suspicious shit, and people won't suspect you (of course this can be thoroughly scrutinized, and i'm sure plenty of people improperly or arbitrarily suspect various individuals for a variety of "reasons" which are not of sound judgment or basis, but i digress).

Let's simplify it even more: avoid all problems that can be avoided; try to solve the rest at the source, possibly by altering the source which produces said problem, in such a way as to prevent it from producing that problem again, but without modifying in any way which produces other equivalent or worse problems.

This attitude is part of what has kept me alive and spared me from the vast majority of unwanted potential consequences. I could probably expound indefinitely on this particular topic.

But when i was young, we just called it "staying out of trouble." I find it baffling that this seems so difficult for so many of the people i've encountered throughout my life. Some people seem compelled to do things which cause unwanted problems, both to themselves and others... and no amount of reasoning or explaining seems to have much effect. I guess people don't like listening to anyone unless they think they can gain something beneficial by doing so. But a problem is that too many people don't understand "better judgment," and don't understand how to choose appropriate judgment criteria, to act as the foundational basis for sound judgment. Some would learn, given the opportunity... but some people seem to agree that being a beast is easier than being a man, and so they run with that until something stops them.

The guy was just standing there. OK? So, you never just stand there?

 

[reasonevangelist]

Sound like you are barking at a tree or something.

sounds like "clickity clackity thonk" over here.

But yeah, i realize that the vast majority of living things give no fucks about my opinions or feelings or even the fact that i exist at all. I usually think that's just par for the course, but sometimes i wonder if maybe it should be different.

What else is a chained dog to do, but bark at trees and anything else that seems like it needs barking at?

 

[reasonevangelist]

The guy was just standing there. OK? So, you never just stand there?

Certain business owners and most police departments define that as "loitering." I try not to be seen doing things that can be defined as "criminal." In fact, i try to actually refrain from all acts considered "criminal," because it just seems like the right thing to do... you know, most of the time.

 

[Doer]

But, you can stand for a minute in a public place and it is practically never loitering.

 

[Doer]

sounds like "clickity clackity thonk" over here.

But yeah, i realize that the vast majority of living things give no fucks about my opinions or feelings or even the fact that i exist at all. I usually think that's just par for the course, but sometimes i wonder if maybe it should be different.

What else is a chained dog to do, but bark at trees and anything else that seems like it needs barking at?

No one said they don't give a fuck about you, Mr. Victim-card I just said it doesn't matter.

 

[Rob Roy]

So in other words: the entity who believes and declares themselves fit for forcing people to be involved with things, regardless of consent, and of keeping track of everything every person does or is allowed to do, would have no problem declaring themselves authorized to continue doing as they already are.

The problems they arbitrarily create, are obvious and unacceptable to us... but they continue to simply deny that any "problem" actually exists, while they are the sole proprietors and perpetrators (or perpetraitor?) of these very problems; these "problems" they've created, in order to produce a reaction of demand for their prepackaged "solution," is how they work their system, which is how said system is designed to function.

I would never want to participate in any organized activity that is designed to systematically deprive me of my rights and/or life experiences; which is exactly the system "they" have created to control us, through deprivation of rights and/or life experiences.

It's a shame humanity still can't do better than this.

Humans for the most part have stopped throwing virgins in volcanoes. So there is hope for the future. It is the idea that takes wings which the bad guys fear. When more people connect the logic that it is impossible to have a coercive entity ensure peace, the bad guys are done.