America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

In Christine Gregoir's first gubinatorial run 1000 votes of her's were from dead people, that election was decided by less than 5000 votes.

In Oregon we have MAIL IN ballots. I've witnessed caregivers filling these out "for" patients, and pretty much written in what they want. Not to mention DRIVERS LICENSES being used to REGISTER to vote by illegal aliens.

Then you have Lord Diebolt. In Illinois a voting machine wouldn't allow a Republican candidate to vote for himself last week, but that was an "irregularity".

DEATH PANELS.


Sarah Palin accepts your apology

You don't see Muslim Usurper on ballots either, yet here we are.

Our elected officials decide whether to send our troops into harm's way.
So yes, in effect voter fraud may kill people.

BS on this whole line of thought. There is no way to equate the loss of human life to voter fraud. Voter fraud is trivial in comparison. As HD said, voter fraud does not kill.

Don't you think there needs to be some grant money allocated, a study done, and a book written verifying that hypothesis?

Yeah I think so.

gonna have to kill a lot of people and see how wound up everyone gets.. then maybe fake a bunch of votes and see what gets people more pisseed. I'll start with just the poor and poorly educated, since we know that when you get to the people that actually count as people one of them is worth more than all the votes (top 5% baby!)

Does Bush know you turned on him?

What about Rosanne?

Poor people can count ?!!

It seems there's more resistance to having to show ID to vote than there is to identifying yourself for gun purchases.

I'm guessing that within all your wisdom you've missed the point of the hypocrisy and the extreme comparison offered:

The hypocrisy of the argument that requiring a Voter ID "infringes" on a persons right to vote (15th Amendment) while ignoring the fact that requiring an ID & Federal Registration to own a firearm infringes on a legal citizens rights to own a gun. (2nd Amendment).

The hypocrisy of equating voting fraud with the loss of human life when the entire policy of gun-control is geared to protecting human life. One of MANY reasons the Surgeon General nomination has been denied is because the nominee supports the Big "O"s agenda of furthering gun-control by declaring it a health-issue instead of a crime-issue.

The hypocrisy of equating voting fraud and requiring a Voter ID while pulling the race card. These "disenfranchised" people do not have a problem with presenting an ID to collect free housing, health-care, social benefits, education, tax-free loans, free iPnones with internet, etc.

The comparison list could go on, and on, and on again.

Fair enough Buckwheat, but the damage is accumulative, and I wasn't speaking of just war. Think broader.

And it's a representative republic not a pure democracy.

Pffffttt. I use Kaiser. I won't use the VA unless it's a last resort.

Yes, please list the facts or a link to them. Thanks

You didn't answer my question.
I offered you a solution. No restrictions whatsoever on gun purchases. Any individual can walk in to any gun store and pay cash for a gun, walk out with said gun and ammunition.

I asked if this solution would make you happy and you simply went off on a tangent about apparently illegal immigrants demanding stuff... and another rant about exaggeration of disenfranchised people.

Kind of makes me wonder whether you actually care about your 2nd amendment cause, or if you're just running off on any random thing which pops in your head.

No use arguing...vicki's always right

The point is that you can't promote further gun-control while allowing Voting to be as easy as buying a soda. Voter fraud is the problem and dangerous. Never argued to get rid of the ID, only that if you require it to exercise one right, the same ID should be required to exercise the other.

IDK... Can they?

No, but you CAN be lawfully detained until your proper identity is known. And if that means taking you in for fingerprints, so be it.

That's assuming they only detained you with probable cause. The entire concept of probable cause is based on the 4th amendment.

If one cannot exercise ones 4th amendment without ID, that would imply that the police do not have to follow probable cause when detaining, searching homes etc unless the person has an ID (and can demonstrate said ID).

I'm not disagreeing, but I think clarification is needed. The SCOTUS ruled on this in the case: Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada.

Nevada has a statute on the books:




In the Hiibel case, the SCOTUS ruled that under the circumstances noted above, it is reasonable to require a person to identify themselves.

However, AFAIK it is not lawful to detain someone simply for the sake of identifying them absent at the very least a reasonable suspicion they are involved in criminal activities. In fact, when I was in the academy we were taught legal by a retired FBI agent who is a lawyer and through out his career he was tasked with writing, among other things, Affidavits of Probable Cause. He specifically taught us that if we detained someone absent at least reasonable suspicion we ran the risk of a civil rights violation.

In terms of fingerprinting them to identify them, it better be done quickly because the SCOTUS ruled in Hiibel that they can be detained no longer than 60 minutes. The other problem is when that person is placed in a squad car to be taken for prints they are for all intents and purposes under arrest. To arrest someone requires probable cause which is a more strict requirement than reasonable suspicion. Should a judge find there was no probable cause to arrest then a civil rights violation can easily be argued.

Chiken dinner. .??