you have to pay $13.50 to vote in pennsylvania

[canndo]

Easy now Canndo, stereotypes are a dime a dozen don't turn out like the libtards on this forum. The day you let passion rule reason is the day you lose all credibility.

With our lax illegal immigration and our "executive order" 2 year free passes for illegal immigration it's pretty hard to imagine that we wouldn't tighten voting security. Most towns don't wait for someone to be killed or a bank to be robbed before they hire a police officer do they? Our voting system is too easy to fraud anyone can do it without the risk of being caught. It's a joke really, I am surprised we our just now coming to the conclusion we need some kind of security to protect voters rights. Owning a firearm is a right and you must provide a photo ID and information when buying one of those. In fact certain democratic parties want to make the restrictions even more demanding. The truth is most of our rights you can probably link to requiring an ID in some form or fashion. We all know it's close to impossible to function in society without an ID or driver license and we all know that the majority that do not have them are incompetent or illegal. Its a tough argument, to tell people that we should trust others by their word when we all know only fools do that.

Out of context Non. I believe that "I know you folks" had something to do with O'keef and I added that "we folks" like Moore. It was intended to be a wry sort of point on equivelence between the two and the tendancy for us all to trust those that should not be trusted.


Non, your post makes some sense, but laws are most often enacted after a problem is encountered and more than likely the laws that govern populations of people provide for time in which to comply. Furthermore, in some states, what most would consider acceptable ID has been rendered otherwise. There are large numbers of people on one of the states who will not know that they are unable to vote until they show their ID, Id that has been acceptable for their entire voting lives and are told that that ID is no longer valid.

This alone would tend to negate your argument. I don't know that Obama has offered a "free pass" for illegal immigration.

Yes, owning a firearm is a right and ID should not be required to posess it, but it may be in order to purchase - even so, I do not agree with those laws.

Other than that single example, we use ID for transactions between ourselves and private businesses, they, along with other transactions with government entities are not rights. Vagrancy laws demanding that individuals on the street carry ID were long ago struck down as unconstitutional.

The point is not that ID is a good idea for voters, the point is that the infliction, the weilding of ID requirements by Republican run states is obviously a ploy in order to alter this election.

The arguments that you make would be reasonable in a situation where an election were not pending and those without "proper" Id were not so obviously democrat leaning.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Horseshit.

"To disenfranchise is to deprive of a right, in particular, the right to vote. But only some people have the right to vote. Felons and children do not have the right to vote, nor do non-citizens. You do not have the right to vote in a certain geographical area simply because you are a sentient being residing in that area. Otherwise, my cats would have the right to vote. Now a requirement that one prove that one has the right to vote is not to be confused with a denial of the right to vote.

My right to vote is one thing, my ability to prove I have the right another. If I cannot prove that I am who I claim to be on a given occasion, then I won't be able to exercise my right to vote on that occasion; but that is not to say that I have been 'disenfranchised.' For I haven't been deprived of my right to vote; I have merely been prevented from exercising my right due to my inability do prove my identity."

That, my pedigree chums, is the end of the debate for me.

 

[UncleBuck]

Horseshit.

"To disenfranchise is to deprive of a right, in particular, the right to vote. But only some people have the right to vote. Felons and children do not have the right to vote, nor do non-citizens. You do not have the right to vote in a certain geographical area simply because you are a sentient being residing in that area. Otherwise, my cats would have the right to vote. Now a requirement that one prove that one has the right to vote is not to be confused with a denial of the right to vote.

My right to vote is one thing, my ability to prove I have the right another. If I cannot prove that I am who I claim to be on a given occasion, then I won't be able to exercise my right to vote on that occasion; but that is not to say that I have been 'disenfranchised.' For I haven't been deprived of my right to vote; I have merely been prevented from exercising my right due to my inability do prove my identity."

That, my pedigree chums, is the end of the debate for me.

do you support having to pay a sum of money to the government in order to be able to vote?

 

[UncleBuck]

This battle has already been adjudicated, ID requirements are legal.

that's on appeal you fucking tard.

you lie more than the transgendered male hookers you frequent.

 

[canndo]

that's on appeal you fucking tard.

you lie more than the transgendered male hookers you frequent.

Uncle Buck sir..... If he is talking about the same ruling I am, there is no appeal as it was a SCOTUS case. They found that a state requring voter ID was not an undue burden on the population in spite of the facts surrounding the case.

 

[scroglodyte]

only landed gentry should be allowed to vote

 

[UncleBuck]

Uncle Buck sir..... If he is talking about the same ruling I am, there is no appeal as it was a SCOTUS case. They found that a state requring voter ID was not an undue burden on the population in spite of the facts surrounding the case.

i'm talking about the case which inspired this thread, where a pennsylvania judge dismissed turzai's speech as simply "boastful" and saw nothing wrong with requiring citizens to pay a sum of money to the government in order to be able to vote, in order to fix a problem that the proponents even admitted did not exist, and which would result in the vote of three quarters of a million people to be taken away.

that fucker is on appeals.

 

[beenthere]

My right to vote is one thing, my ability to prove I have the right another. If I cannot prove that I am who I claim to be on a given occasion, then I won't be able to exercise my right to vote on that occasion; but that is not to say that I have been 'disenfranchised.' For I haven't been deprived of my right to vote; I have merely been prevented from exercising my right due to my inability do prove my identity."

That, my pedigree chums, is the end of the debate for me.

do you support having to pay a sum of money to the government in order to be able to vote?

What a stupid fucking question. you struggling to comprehend MuyLoco's statement? LOL

 

[canndo]

Beenthere, you are here, care to comment on this new revelation in conjuction with turzai's?

 

[UncleBuck]

What a stupid fucking question. you struggling to comprehend MuyLoco's statement? LOL

beenthere, do you support having to pay a sum of money to the government before you are allowed to vote?

 

[beenthere]

Beenthere, you are here, care to comment on this new revelation in conjuction with turzai's?

I all ready have my friend, Rep Turzai was correct, now that voter fraud will be reduced, Mitt Romney will probably win!

 

[MuyLocoNC]

do you support having to pay a sum of money to the government in order to be able to vote?

I'm not in favor of that scenario. Fortunately, that's not the situation currently under debate. I absolutely demand that ID be required to vote. If the government needs to make those IDs free to make everyone happy, I'll shell out a few more tax dollars to accommodate it.

As the quote in my post incontrovertibly lays out, requiring you to prove you qualify for the right to vote does not infringe on your right to vote. You can disagree of course, but I couldn't care less, it's a fact and it makes absolute sense to anyone thinking logically. 20+ million illegals, countless felons and underage people are out there, that's the reality. Proving you are who you say you are and not one of them is the very least we can ask of our fellow citizens, myself included.

 

[beenthere]

beenthere, do you support having to pay a sum of money to the government before you are allowed to vote?

No I do not, that is a poll tax.

But i do support a law that requires a voter to prove who they say they are, I don't want any voter to be disenfranchised by their vote being cancelled out by illegal votes!

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not in favor of that scenario. Fortunately, that's not the situation currently under debate.

you should go back and check the title of the thread, actually.

[h=1]"you have to pay $13.50 to vote in pennsylvania"[/h]

 

[UncleBuck]

No I do not, that is a poll tax.

well, that is exactly what is happening in PA. in order to cast a vote, you have to, at one time or another, pay $13.50 to the government in order to eligible to vote.

thanks for finally agreeing with me here.

 

[beardo]

well, that is exactly what is happening in PA. in order to cast a vote, you have to, at one time or another, pay $13.50 to the government in order to eligible to vote.

thanks for finally agreeing with me here.

[youtube]JspxV9MES-Y[/youtube]

 

[beenthere]

you should go back and check the title of the thread, actually.

"you have to pay $13.50 to vote in pennsylvania"

Why don't come clean, we all know you could give a flying fuck whether some poor person in Pennsylvania has to pay $13.50 for an ID. The only thing you care about is how the left can win elections, you're a disingenuous SOB.

 

[beenthere]

well, that is exactly what is happening in PA. in order to cast a vote, you have to, at one time or another, pay $13.50 to the government in order to eligible to vote.

thanks for finally agreeing with me here.

I certainly do not agree with some moron that thinks an ID is some kind of a poll tax, get real.

 

[UncleBuck]

Why don't come clean, we all know you could give a flying fuck whether some poor person in Pennsylvania has to pay $13.50 for an ID. The only thing you care about is how the left can win elections, you're a disingenuous SOB.

lol.

this is about following the constitution.

nice attempt at trying to flip it entirely though.

"voter ID - which will allow governor romney to win pennslyvania - DONE"

 

[UncleBuck]

I certainly do not agree with some moron that thinks an ID is some kind of a poll tax, get real.

in order to obtain the ID and thus be allowed to vote, you must first pay a sum of money to the government.

what would you call it when you have to pay a sum of money to the government in order to be able to vote?

when the SCOTUS ruled on the PPACA, you called having to pay a sum of money to the government a tax.

can't have it both ways, failbot.