Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[ginnyfizz]

What is the problem with providing voter ID when in so many other aspects of life you may be called upon to produce ID?

 

The necessity of having ID on one's person and having to show it constantly for every imaginable reason is not a fact of life in North America and comparison with the more socialist life style such as found in Europe where ID is a must, isn't valid. Entirely different life styles and rights in NA.

 

Regardless, the issue is not with requiring voter ID, the problem is what the laws state is accepted as ID. 30 states already have laws requiring voter ID and others have laws in the works. Unfortunately, some states have passed laws that limit individuals from gaining acceptable ID or no allowing certain types of ID and thus the law violates those individuals constitutional rights to vote.

 

 

As for the news media, I cannot even fathom how Fox is permitted to even operate as a news agency. Fox doesn't report the news, they make it up as they go.

 

Then how come even US Citizens may have to produce ID in various circumstances, such as going on a domestic flight, amongst other things? And as usual, you quote me selectively. I was never in favour of identity cards in the UK, and the proposal for them was thrown out. We don't have them. I said that there are some circumstances where I need to provide ID in the form of my passport. And I also said we do not need to produce ID to vote, but there will be a de facto check that you are on the electoral register.

 

Is it not violating your constitutional right to vote if there is a case of personation and someone goes and votes in your place?

I find it quite ironic that you quote the constitution on the one hand and say that you do not know how Fox is permitted to operate as a news agency. You can't have it both ways.

[Tidus44]

Then how come even US Citizens may have to produce ID in various circumstances, such as going on a domestic flight, amongst other things?

I relooked at my post and I can't find anywhere where I said US citizens are never, ever required to produce ID. Please point out where I said this as I cannot find it and if I recall correctly, I only stated the necessity for ID is not as critical in NA as it is in some more socialist countries as in Europe. I am not sure why this would be misunderstood or misinterpreted as meaning ID is never required in the US.

 

And as usual, you quote me selectively. I was never in favour of identity cards in the UK, and the proposal for them was thrown out. We don't have them. I said that there are some circumstances where I need to provide ID in the form of my passport. And I also said we do not need to produce ID to vote, but there will be a de facto check that you are on the electoral register.

I believe your question was “What is the problem with providing voter ID when in so many other aspects of life you may be called upon to produce ID?” I looked again and I cannot find anywhere where I stated anyone was in favor of ID cards in the UK or anywhere else in answer to the question. Please point this out for me as I cannot find this statement in my post.

I also believe I did clarify that the issue is not the necessity of having to produce ID, but laws limiting what is acceptable as ID and thus limiting an individual’s right to vote.

 

Is it not violating your constitutional right to vote if there is a case of personation and someone goes and votes in your place?

I checked this as well and I don't see anywhere where I posted it was constitutional or not or even mentioned the situation of someone impersonating someone else and voting for them. In answer to your question, it would not necessarily be violating anyone’s right as the individual would still be permitted a provisional ballot and have it counted upon producing valid ID. As for the person who voted in place of another, this may have happened sometime, bit I doubt it’s a widespread or significant problem and if caught they would be subject to other laws as well.

 

I find it quite ironic that you quote the constitution on the one hand and say that you do not know how Fox is permitted to operate as a news agency. You can't have it both ways

I am also not sure how the constitution comes into play in regards to what I stated about Fox News. The constitution and the 1st amendment do not protect people from lies, slander or defamation so I have no idea what you mean by having “it both ways” or what the irony is. Perhaps you should look that word up as you don’t seem to be using it correctly. I’m pretty sure I didn’t suggest that Fox News have its constitutional rights violated, I only stated I have a hard time believing they are permitted to operate the way they do and call themselves a “news agency” since they seem to make news up, not necessarily report it. Perhaps you should clarify what it is you are talking about as it doesn’t make much sense in relation to what I posted.

[colourwheel]

With the worst of "Sandy" almost over. Seems it's being non-political during a natrual disaster is kinda politically being politicized.

 

Anyone who has still been paying any attention to politics Mitt Romney was in Ohio in his ""disaster relief political campaign rally" today Gathering food for the Redcross. The funny thing is even after the Redcross told the romney campaign they didn't want any donated food and people donating money would be better. Romney still collected the food. I think it's ironic him asking his supporters in ohio who are probably not rich to donate foods for the red cross when the red cross doesn't even have a need for it or even asking for it.

 

If Mitt Romney was smart instead of holding a "campaign rally" disguised as a "disaster relief rally" in Ohio, he should have just wrote a check to the redcross for a million dollars. I think that would have been the best political thing he could have made during a time when politics are a "no no" during such a big natural disaster. After all he is rich....

 

Ontop of this political mistake for Romney, Chris Christie who has been very critical on Obama in the past got upset at the idea when asked the question on foxnews if mitt romney was going to visit new jersey to tour the damage with him. Also Chris Christie seemed to have done a 180 approval of obama as president.

 

And I can tell you why....

 

Mitt Romney wants to basically limit government and privatize everything and almost anything possible. Chris Christie isn't dumb He knows he needs Fema and government help right now. If Romney was president he would have the states be on their own.

 

I am sorry but you can't privatize FEMA.

Edited October 31, 2012 by colourwheel

[SilverDNA]

I agree on your analysis Colourwheel

 

Let me give you a hand if Romney would be really smart he would go to the areas hit by Sandy and help this would be the best PR he can get.

 

As in Germany 2002 did ex Chancellor Schroeder (He did won the election in this year).

Funny America has politically/Economically a similar situation as Germany 2005

If you compare how Schröder lost against Merkle you might get the idea how you end up if you compare the things possible from the American point of view.

The blockade in politics from the republicans as well as the direct campaigns against one another are sharper as it was here in Germany, but I can see the duality to a degree. Might be worth to compare from your angle and if you have time to kill of course.

 

One news paper here in Germany had as headline "Sandy came to vote in America"

Here in Europe we fear a reign of Romney, because he already made clear he is less cautious on many international politics; be it economy or diplomacy.

We don't want a bull in a glass house in this.

 

My sympathy goes to all American people who where hit hard by Sandy and will not have a Happy Halloween this year, having property destroyed or their houses under water or even a family member lost.

 

[mizdarby]

My sympathies go out to the people affected by Sandy, particularly those who lost loved ones during the storm.

 

Of course it hasn't taken long for the Presidential candidates to try gain political capital from the tragedy, though I am sure the loss of life and property damage, will sadden them like any other person would be. President Obama is now using the old political 'trick' of sounding statesman like, to reinforce his image of being in 'control' when the chips are down, whilst Mitt Romney is doing his best to make Obama look statesman like as well, by focusing his 'disaster relief' efforts in Ohio, which I believe happens to be a state Romney must win, to have any chance of winning the election.

[jantzaw]

This is my first post on these forums; Yay.

 

When I look at the presidential candidates, I do not see one that I believe is what America needs the most. I do not see the shining star that is the obvious choice for this election.

If I had to choose, I would vote for Obama, only because I see him as the lesser of two evils, and not to say that either is evil, but neither is what America is looking for.

 

I believe Obama is the closest thing to the ideal president for America.

Edited October 31, 2012 by jantzaw

[colourwheel]

This is my first post on these forums; Yay.

 

When I look at the presidential candidates, I do not see one that I believe is what America needs the most. I do not see the shining star that is the obvious choice for this election.

If I had to choose, I would vote for Obama, only because I see him as the lesser of two evils, and not to say that either is evil, but neither is what America is looking for.

 

I believe Obama is the closest thing to the ideal president for America.

 

I honestly felt the same way you do a few months ago. Yet after actually paying enough attention for once on what has been going on politically in the country it can kinda tend to open ones mind a bit. I use to not be very political before and ussually only half the time really pay attention to what was really going on in our country.

 

I look at even the 3rd party canidates then look at Obama and Romney and realize to a huge extent who would actually be the best choice and realize most the time it has to be obama.

 

Huge problem with 3rd party canidates is they tend to only focus on a few things and tend to ignore or never take a stand or a side on any other issues at all. After seeing what has happened recently in our country with "hurricane Sandy" it reminds me how bad bush handled "hurricane katrina". Obama actually took charged and cares about the country giving full support to even one of Obama's greatest critics chris christie. Even though chris christie has been the type of person who I use to think just hated Obama. It made me realize chris christie actually cares about his job and the people he is govenor of. Also Christie he has always wanted to be governor of new jersey. Then you look at Mitt Romeny and massachusetts. Romney only held one term as govenor and to me seems he only used the opportunity to run for govenor as a stepping stone.

 

It's one thing for leaders to say they really care about the country but no politician should actually even need to be stating this. All one has to do is look at what they actually do or try to do as political leaders to know if they really care or not. One reason why Bush's approval rating dropped so low over his administration reguardless of his failing policies, was because over all he looked like a president who really didn't care about the country or the people.

 

But going back to look at who actually cares about the country I would have to say Obama genuinely seems more caring over any one else who was running this year even including 3rd party canidates.

 

Just imagine if Romney was president and another huge natrual disaster or even an actually huge terrorist attacked on the country. Romeny has been on the record in the past saying since FEMA was running out of money he would privatize it. But the thing is if you try to privatize something like FEMA and something big actually does happen it just wouldn't work. A private company isnt going to go into a disaster zone and try to get everything done no matter what. A company will evaluate the situation and then try to only proffit off what they could do because they are a company.

Edited October 31, 2012 by colourwheel

[ginnyfizz]

Then how come even US Citizens may have to produce ID in various circumstances, such as going on a domestic flight, amongst other things?

I relooked at my post and I can't find anywhere where I said US citizens are never, ever required to produce ID. Please point out where I said this as I cannot find it and if I recall correctly, I only stated the necessity for ID is not as critical in NA as it is in some more socialist countries as in Europe. I am not sure why this would be misunderstood or misinterpreted as meaning ID is never required in the US.

 

And as usual, you quote me selectively. I was never in favour of identity cards in the UK, and the proposal for them was thrown out. We don't have them. I said that there are some circumstances where I need to provide ID in the form of my passport. And I also said we do not need to produce ID to vote, but there will be a de facto check that you are on the electoral register.

I believe your question was “What is the problem with providing voter ID when in so many other aspects of life you may be called upon to produce ID?” I looked again and I cannot find anywhere where I stated anyone was in favor of ID cards in the UK or anywhere else in answer to the question. Please point this out for me as I cannot find this statement in my post.

I also believe I did clarify that the issue is not the necessity of having to produce ID, but laws limiting what is acceptable as ID and thus limiting an individual’s right to vote.

 

Is it not violating your constitutional right to vote if there is a case of personation and someone goes and votes in your place?

I checked this as well and I don't see anywhere where I posted it was constitutional or not or even mentioned the situation of someone impersonating someone else and voting for them. In answer to your question, it would not necessarily be violating anyone’s right as the individual would still be permitted a provisional ballot and have it counted upon producing valid ID. As for the person who voted in place of another, this may have happened sometime, bit I doubt it’s a widespread or significant problem and if caught they would be subject to other laws as well.

 

I find it quite ironic that you quote the constitution on the one hand and say that you do not know how Fox is permitted to operate as a news agency. You can't have it both ways

I am also not sure how the constitution comes into play in regards to what I stated about Fox News. The constitution and the 1st amendment do not protect people from lies, slander or defamation so I have no idea what you mean by having “it both ways” or what the irony is. Perhaps you should look that word up as you don’t seem to be using it correctly. I’m pretty sure I didn’t suggest that Fox News have its constitutional rights violated, I only stated I have a hard time believing they are permitted to operate the way they do and call themselves a “news agency” since they seem to make news up, not necessarily report it. Perhaps you should clarify what it is you are talking about as it doesn’t make much sense in relation to what I posted.

 

I mean exactly what I say. You are talking on the one hand about the prospect of being asked to produce ID in order to vote as a violation of constitutional rights, and then on the other hand talking about you don't know why Fox News are allowed to broadcast what they do, ie intimating they should not be allowed free speech. Just because you happen not to like what they are saying. That is double standards. It really couldn't be much simpler. And as Syco21 suggested, it isn't just the right wing media that tell porkies and make slanted broadcasts, you really should take a look at the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation to prove that. It is pretty usual for the Left to love free speech and constitutional rights...as long as they only apply to them.

 

And there is simply no need to be condescending, assuming that anyone who expresses a more conservative view is an uneducated oik and making insulting remarks about "perhaps you should look that word up". Thank you, but I was taught to read and write and fully understand the English language. Queen's English or any other sort.

[colourwheel]

as Syco21 suggested, it isn't just the right wing media that tell porkies and make slanted broadcasts, you really should take a look at the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation to prove that.

 

When it comes to politics, i don't try to pretend I know anything about what is happening politically in the UK. As for BBC I can not comment on how "slanted" you might be suggesting it might be. But as far as american political media goes I know I have not seen anything close to being so misleading or informatively bad to the point of just lies as Foxnews does consistantly.

 

It would be interesting to see someone even come close to challenge a news network worst than what foxnews has been doing over the past few years. Also it would be interesting to see someone post a video proving BBC news politicizing lies to the extreme degree Foxnews has, if it is true.

Edited October 31, 2012 by colourwheel

[Tidus44]

I mean exactly what I say. You are talking on the one hand about the prospect of being asked to produce ID in order to vote as a violation of constitutional rights, and then on the other hand talking about you don't know why Fox News are allowed to broadcast what they do, ie intimating they should not be allowed free speech. Just because you happen not to like what they are saying. That is double standards. It really couldn't be much simpler. And as Syco21 suggested, it isn't just the right wing media that tell porkies and make slanted broadcasts, you really should take a look at the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation to prove that. It is pretty usual for the Left to love free speech and constitutional rights...as long as they only apply to them.

I have to believe there is a language issue or comprehension problem here as you are quite a bit off base on your accusations.

 

I believe what I posted was;

Regardless, the issue is not with requiring voter ID, the problem is what the laws state is accepted as ID. 30 states already have laws requiring voter ID and others have laws in the works. Unfortunately, some states have passed laws that limit individuals from gaining acceptable ID or no allowing certain types of ID and thus the law violates those individuals constitutional rights to vote.

And;

I also believe I did clarify that the issue is not the necessity of having to produce ID, but laws limiting what is acceptable as ID and thus limiting an individual’s right to vote.

 

I am not sure how you perceive any of this as stating the need to produce ID is a violation of constitutional rights. If this isn’t understandable to you, perhaps you can get someone to read it and explain it to you as I have no idea how to state it more clearly.

 

As for Fox News, I stated;

As for the news media, I cannot even fathom how Fox is permitted to even operate as a news agency. Fox doesn't report the news, they make it up as they go.Further, I clarified this by posting;

I only stated I have a hard time believing they are permitted to operate the way they do and call themselves a “news agency”.

 

I have no idea how you can connect constitutional rights, the right of free speech or state ID laws or anything else to what I posted regarding Fox News. You seem to be reading a lot more into what I have posted than what is there.

 

As for whatever media you take issue with, please feel free to do so and for whatever reason you feel is applicable. However, your opinion or prejudices are really of no interest to me nor is it relative to what I posted.

 

And there is simply no need to be condescending, assuming that anyone who expresses a more conservative view is an uneducated oik and making insulting remarks about "perhaps you should look that word up". Thank you, but I was taught to read and write and fully understand the English language. Queen's English or any other sort.

If you feel my explaining or providing clarification to posts you are clearly misunderstanding is condescending, perhaps in future you may want to stop attending these forums or at least stop getting quite so angry and offended by what people post. Perhaps it may help to read the post fully and if you do not understand, ask a polite question rather than simply attack hysterically.

As for political view, I do not believe I know, or even care, what an individual’s political leaning may be, but when they do use words in error, I do feel compelled to identify this to them.

 

Obviously, you, as most people, seem to think that irony means a juxtaposition of opposites, as in: It was ironic that the fire station burned down.

While this sentence has some element of irony in it, it is not really ironic, and does not portray the full and correct meaning of the word irony. True irony requires a form of deceit, duplicity, or hypocrisy, either intentional or accidental. Since nothing I posted holds any of these elements, nothing I posted was ironic; at worst it would be contradictory or perhaps conflicting, but certainly not ironic.

You may want to look this up yourself as you seem convinced you have a mastery of the language when clearly that isn’t quite 100% correct.