Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So, you admit you made a dishonet claim when you spoke as to what the framers would think about the 2nd should they be around today.Prove it.I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters.
Else, youre just spouting more of your usual partisan bigotry.
While you're at it,
Regarding the onus to provide for the common defense and your claim to that effect....
Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.
Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?
Well, the framers are all dead but it's pretty clear that not all of them would agree with me, or you for that matter. In fact they had trouble agreeing amongst themselves on most issues.
I believe the American Left is economically to the left of real Communists is Vietnam and China.
So says one of resident Communists and enemies to this Republic.I believe the American Left is economically to the left of real Communists is Vietnam and China.
CrusaderFrank is a liar. He does not believe any such thing. He knows damned well what is wrong with that silly argument. He is lying.
So says one of resident Communists and enemies to this Republic.I believe the American Left is economically to the left of real Communists is Vietnam and China.
CrusaderFrank is a liar. He does not believe any such thing. He knows damned well what is wrong with that silly argument. He is lying.
identification is specifically designed to disenfranchise voters who might vote for Obama.
The T may not be a liar. He may be stupid enough to actually believe that I am a Communist. If so, I feel sincerely sorry for him.
None. He tries his damndest to hide it though.The T may not be a liar. He may be stupid enough to actually believe that I am a Communist. If so, I feel sincerely sorry for him.
What's the difference between your agenda and the agenda of the Communist Party?
So says one of resident Communists and enemies to this Republic.CrusaderFrank is a liar. He does not believe any such thing. He knows damned well what is wrong with that silly argument. He is lying.
The T may not be a liar. He may be stupid enough to actually believe that I am a Communist. If so, I feel sincerely sorry for him.
They advocate the very same thing that brought down the Soviet Union...which never went away...So says one of resident Communists and enemies to this Republic.
The T may not be a liar. He may be stupid enough to actually believe that I am a Communist. If so, I feel sincerely sorry for him.
A liberal is often a tool of the communists but lacks the IQ to know it.
This is why even after 200 years of steady growth of government the liberal always wants still more and more growth; even when we are $15 trillion in debt . They can't say how big is big. They are on a journey whose destination is known only to their masters.
Why not read "Liberal Fascism" to get an 400 page understanding?
Norman Thomas quotes:
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
I believe the American Left is economically to the left of real Communists is Vietnam and China.
CrusaderFrank is a liar. He does not believe any such thing. He knows damned well what is wrong with that silly argument. He is lying.
Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.When I read those words, I see the meaning a bit more broadly - hence our different perspective on our Constitution. I see the Federal Government has a role in protecting us from disease; from such a perspective I see the role of government in providing preventative protections to all citizens as part of providing a common defense.
Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?
This is, of course a lie.Finally we get to securing the rights of all citizens. Given the effort by the Republican Party to root out voter fraud, many states are in the process of changing the laws on what ID must be presented by a person who wishes to vote. Everyone - at least every honest person - understands this is an effort to unlevel the playing field and exclude voters who are likely to vote for Obama.
But, aside from your brazen dishonesty...
If you agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to buy a gun, you must then agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to vote.
I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters. There must be provisions in the new laws for citizens who do not have a proper ID and cannot get one in time, to vote. Ballots submitted by those without ID may be provisional, and subject to verification of there being legally cast, but no one should be disenfranchised by a part time government employee.
The laws are supposed to be focused on rooting out fraud; they must not be used to disenfranchise legally entitled citizens to exercise their right to vote. I am making an allegation that the Republican Party has conspired to disenfranchise voters in the next election. I don't have to prove it, the evidence that the right to vote has been denied, restricted and made more difficult in our nations past is well known and given the few arrests and convictions from 2008 it's pretty obvious voter fraud is not epidemic.
I believe the American Left is economically to the left of real Communists is Vietnam and China.
CrusaderFrank is a liar. He does not believe any such thing. He knows damned well what is wrong with that silly argument. He is lying.
Please show that, if the framers were here now, they'd see the current state of affairs, and agree with your interpretation.
Or do such standards only apply when you're discussing what they would have done regarding the 2nd?
This is, of course a lie.
But, aside from your brazen dishonesty...
If you agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to buy a gun, you must then agree that it is OK to require a photo ID to vote.
I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters. There must be provisions in the new laws for citizens who do not have a proper ID and cannot get one in time, to vote. Ballots submitted by those without ID may be provisional, and subject to verification of there being legally cast, but no one should be disenfranchised by a part time government employee.
The laws are supposed to be focused on rooting out fraud; they must not be used to disenfranchise legally entitled citizens to exercise their right to vote. I am making an allegation that the Republican Party has conspired to disenfranchise voters in the next election. I don't have to prove it, the evidence that the right to vote has been denied, restricted and made more difficult in our nations past is well known and given the few arrests and convictions from 2008 it's pretty obvious voter fraud is not epidemic.
If that was true you should be able to explain why SCs new law, which the DOJ shot down, is more burdensome than the old law which gave fewer options for a person to prove they are legal residents of the state.
I have no objection to showing an ID to vote; I simply pointed out the obvious. This is an attempt by the Republican Party to disenfranchise likely Democratic Voters. There must be provisions in the new laws for citizens who do not have a proper ID and cannot get one in time, to vote. Ballots submitted by those without ID may be provisional, and subject to verification of there being legally cast, but no one should be disenfranchised by a part time government employee.
The laws are supposed to be focused on rooting out fraud; they must not be used to disenfranchise legally entitled citizens to exercise their right to vote. I am making an allegation that the Republican Party has conspired to disenfranchise voters in the next election. I don't have to prove it, the evidence that the right to vote has been denied, restricted and made more difficult in our nations past is well known and given the few arrests and convictions from 2008 it's pretty obvious voter fraud is not epidemic.
If that was true you should be able to explain why SCs new law, which the DOJ shot down, is more burdensome than the old law which gave fewer options for a person to prove they are legal residents of the state.
No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification. If the GOP and those who support this effort want that to be the law of the land, amend the Constitution.
If it was the Original Intent of the founders to require voter ID, cards would have been invented and each white man of majority age would have been provided with one.
If that was true you should be able to explain why SCs new law, which the DOJ shot down, is more burdensome than the old law which gave fewer options for a person to prove they are legal residents of the state.
No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification. If the GOP and those who support this effort want that to be the law of the land, amend the Constitution.
If it was the Original Intent of the founders to require voter ID, cards would have been invented and each white man of majority age would have been provided with one.
One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system? The Founders probably didn't consider the ability to bus large numbers of people into highly populated areas and pay them to vote a certain way. If some were not entirely legal who cares. Other than those who don't want the candidate who is manipulated?
Voter ID protects my unalienable right to have my vote count as much as the next person and to have an honest election. Here in New Mexico, for instance, the margin determining the outcome has been as few as 500 or so people. It wouldn't take a huge initiative to cheat by 500 votes.
I take my privilege to vote very seriously and want my vote to count. I highly resent those who are paid to vote a certain way or who would intentionally skew the natural results of an election. I personally would like to return to the system where you had to get yourself to a specified place to register to vote at least two weeks prior to the election, had to have a positive ID and proof of address in order to register, and then make the effort to get to the polling place on the specified election day. That way we had only mostly people who cared about the process, cared about our Republic, cared about who would lead the nation voting.
Again when it is only "Obama supporters" who probably won't vote if they have to identify themselves, don't you think that is a really sad commentary on Obama and the people who elected him to office?
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require a citizen to provide identification when buying a gun - but, as you said. you do not oppose that.No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification.
No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification. If the GOP and those who support this effort want that to be the law of the land, amend the Constitution.
If it was the Original Intent of the founders to require voter ID, cards would have been invented and each white man of majority age would have been provided with one.
One has to ask why you would so strenuously object to keeping the voting process honest? For what purpose do you want to make it easier for special interests to corrupt the system? The Founders probably didn't consider the ability to bus large numbers of people into highly populated areas and pay them to vote a certain way. If some were not entirely legal who cares. Other than those who don't want the candidate who is manipulated?
Voter ID protects my unalienable right to have my vote count as much as the next person and to have an honest election. Here in New Mexico, for instance, the margin determining the outcome has been as few as 500 or so people. It wouldn't take a huge initiative to cheat by 500 votes.
I take my privilege to vote very seriously and want my vote to count. I highly resent those who are paid to vote a certain way or who would intentionally skew the natural results of an election. I personally would like to return to the system where you had to get yourself to a specified place to register to vote at least two weeks prior to the election, had to have a positive ID and proof of address in order to register, and then make the effort to get to the polling place on the specified election day. That way we had only mostly people who cared about the process, cared about our Republic, cared about who would lead the nation voting.
Again when it is only "Obama supporters" who probably won't vote if they have to identify themselves, don't you think that is a really sad commentary on Obama and the people who elected him to office?
"The Founders probably didn't consider the ability to bus large numbers of people into highly populated areas" nor did they consider an armed student going to a University Campus and killing 30 + students.
Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require a citizen to provide identification when buying a gun - but, as you said. you do not oppose that.No where in the US Constitution does it require a voter to provide Identification.
Explain the difference.
And.. STLL waiting for proof that the intent in all of this is to reduce the number of Dem voters.
