Is Obama scared? Racist?

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Because those things you listed above aren't Constitutional rights, voting is.


Only LEGALLY registered LEGAL residents are allowed to vote. We, the People have every right to insure that the fairness and LEGALITY of the election process is upheld, There should be NO protected classes of voters.

There is NO valid excuse under the sun for a person not to be able to insure that they are legally registered and keep up a LEGAL form of STATE ID, every 4 years or so.
 

cableguymn

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
Because those things you listed above aren't Constitutional rights, voting is.

and non-citizens have this right? It's a "right" to vote even if you can't prove your a citizen? What if your voting "right" has been revoked due to a crime you committed? Is that constitutional? how can the polling place know if your "right" to vote is intact if they can't even verify you are who you say you are.

There is a hole in your argument.

And we have a "right" to move about the country. Does that mean I do not have to have ID or a license to drive?
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Because those things you listed above aren't Constitutional rights, voting is.
That's a common misconception. The Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote (as it does the right to speech, for example).

The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote, but it never explicitly states the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members. The Constitution does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by Constitutional Amendments several times.

Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. That's also why the Supreme Court has upheld voter ID laws in the recent past.
 

cableguymn

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.

actually. The original constitution called for members of the senate to be selected by the states house/senate/gov.. It was amended to allow for a popular vote.

It was a way to insulate Senate members from the backlash of the voters. I personally think the old way should be re-instated.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Hey Leo, I am offended by that comment.

I'm calling it as I see it, it has rather ethnically offensive to even me and with four moderators involved, it says a hell of a lot about what has been going on here in the last couple weeks.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Hey Leo, I am offended by that comment.

I'm calling it as I see it, it has rather ethnically offensive to even me and with four moderators involved, it says a hell of a lot about what has been going on here in the last couple weeks.

No your not! LOL!! Your just in your 'contrary' mode again! :p
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
No your not! LOL!! Your just in your 'contrary' mode again! :p

No Joe, I am offended.

There's a valid reason for my comment - I am offended by the inference - and further Witness is doing putting out the code of conduct he feels is being violated. There is a legit reason why rules need to be followed, not having mods use some and ignore others.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
No Joe, I am offended.

There's a valid reason for my comment - I am offended by the inference - and further Witness is doing putting out the code of conduct he feels is being violated. There is a legit reason why rules need to be followed, not having mods use some and ignore others.

What is the valid reason? I don't understand? Inference of what?
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
What is the valid reason? I don't understand? Inference of what?

See Layout, I respect you enough not to sit here and belittle you by explaining why I'm offended to you.

If I and another member feels it is offensive, then it warrants a look at by the owner of the site - not the mods, not the "administrator" but Lawrence all because it is a moderator who made the comments and everyone is not able to judge it except him.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
This isn't just Obama. Election fraud is almost entirely a tactic of the left, except when Ron Paul runs, in which case the Republicans do it internally. Iow, this is straight out of the Demon-crat playbook, and not the back page, either. This is situation normal for them.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
See Layout, I respect you enough not to sit here and belittle you by explaining why I'm offended to you.

If I and another member feels it is offensive, then it warrants a look at by the owner of the site - not the mods, not the "administrator" but Lawrence all because it is a moderator who made the comments and everyone is not able to judge it except him.

Well, then I cannot address your concerns. I have NO idea what you are talking about. I find this amazing. I cannot imagine what little time Lawrence would have to run all his business ventures if he 'looked' into EVERYTHING that one or two members found offensive. I would guess he would be out of business soon.

Should he look into everything that I find offensive?
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
actually. The original constitution called for members of the senate to be selected by the states house/senate/gov.. It was amended to allow for a popular vote.

It was a way to insulate Senate members from the backlash of the voters. I personally think the old way should be re-instated.

Actually, the reason was that the Founding Fathers set up strong states and a weak federal government. Because the balance of power was different, senators were to represent State interests and were selected by the States to do just that. The House was to represent the people.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Offline
and non-citizens have this right? It's a "right" to vote even if you can't prove your a citizen? What if your voting "right" has been revoked due to a crime you committed? Is that constitutional? how can the polling place know if your "right" to vote is intact if they can't even verify you are who you say you are.

There is a hole in your argument.

And we have a "right" to move about the country. Does that mean I do not have to have ID or a license to drive?

...and how can they ensure nobody votes more then once, or post-mortem, Chicago-style. Showing ID is a must.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
I voted in the Michigan primary. I was asked to produce a VALID picture ID. I did exactly that. I was not offended. I was not offended on racial, religious, gender or national origin reasons. I was PLEASED that my voting district was taking reasonable steps to insure the integrity of that election. After all, that is the DUTY of the district and the State. NOOOO problem. Then again, I ALWAYS insure that my ID is up to date, and my voter registration correct. That is part of MY civic duty.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by LDB
"Here's a thought. Get their donkeys in the car or on the bus or on the bicycle or into their comfortable shoes and go get the ID card!!! It's not like they have to go every day. This liberal bs about it being a hardship is baloney.

Liberals are against proper identification. It eliminates a portion of their voting base. They care NOTHING about voting rights, only about getting as many illegal and improper votes as possible. They know virtually every illegal vote goes to Obama and his ilk."


EO Code of Conduct:

13. Immediate banning from the forum can result from any of the following: Violating the Code of Conduct, posting of pornography; comments which are sexually explicit, harmful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive; excessive obscene or vulgar language; posts which discuss or illustrate illegal activity; providing links to sites that contain any of the aforementioned.

That Code of Conduct paragraph has nothing to do with Leo's statement - nothing in it is "defamatory, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive". This is nothing more than irrelevant nitpicking that misses the mark.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Well, then I cannot address your concerns. I have NO idea what you are talking about.

I don't expect you to address it, I never did and never asked. I would like you to just read his comments and think about them for a bit with an open mind.

I find this amazing.

What do you find amazing, that I get offended?

I don't know if you have read some of my other comments about what has happened here so I would not find it too amazing.

I cannot imagine what little time Lawrence would have to run all his business ventures if he 'looked' into EVERYTHING that one or two members found offensive. I would guess he would be out of business soon.

See this is another thing that tells me that no one gets an important thing about websites, forums and such - the site is only good as its members so if he has little time for me and my comment about a moderator, then he should not expect others to care to participate in the forum. What I mean is that like a retail store, even if the prices are a little high, the value to the customer matters more than the price and in turn the store supports the customer first and foremost, not the store employees or the products. The analogy translates to this - the customer is the member/reader, the store employee is the moderator and the products are the advertiser. So I would think that if you have an issue with a store employee, you go to the management who makes decisions which is Lawrence.

Should he look into everything that I find offensive?

If it is something like this - which not trying to insult you but it is blatantly obvious that you can't miss it.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
No Greg, it is NOT obvious to me. SO, either explain what you mean to me, OR, don't bother me with it.

I found the justice departments ruling, 'offensive'.

Here is how it SHOULD work:

I moved back to Michigan in 2000. I went straight to the Sec of State, changed my drivers license and registered to vote. When I moved out of Monroe to where I live now I went STRAIGHT to the township office and registered to vote in that district. I then went to the Sec of State and changed the address on my drivers license.

Those are MY responsibilities, I MUST meet State and local requirements for driving and voting, OR, don't bother driving or voting. That is how a responsible adult handles his/her's/it's business.

In other words, instead of whining that they are being restricted from voting, people should 'get of their tush' and take care of THEIR business.

It's just not that hard.
 

ts675

Seasoned Expediter
Offline
Hey Leo, I am offended by that comment.

I'm calling it as I see it, it has rather ethnically offensive to even me and with four moderators involved, it says a hell of a lot about what has been going on here in the last couple weeks.

I dunno but I wanna take a crack at this. If his use of the word donkey in that phrase drew your mind to believe he was talking about a persons nationality and not their backside, well then I am offended by that. TA TA that's bye bye and not short for well NM.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Offline
No Greg, it is NOT obvious to me. SO, either explain what you mean to me, OR, don't bother me with it.

Well Joe, I didn't bother you about it in the first place, so don't think that I need to explain it to you because this is an issue about proper management and uniformed respect. I don't want to insult you by explaining things my cat would understand if he was still alive. Even a dead cat would see what's offensive.

I found the justice departments ruling, 'offensive'.

AS I did but also I understand two basic issues here. One being that people tend to NOT get the voting rights act and how it is applied but better yet the dysfunction of the DoJ not just under the present AG but also every one of them since McRenyolds. Two is simply a knee jerk reaction to the decision. Nothing more than a bunch of 'conservatives' b*tching something else about Obama.

If this was really important, then congress needs to act, remove the AG and clean house - you know they can.

Here is how it SHOULD work:

I moved back to Michigan in 2000. I went straight to the Sec of State, changed my drivers license and registered to vote. When I moved out of Monroe to where I live now I went STRAIGHT to the township office and registered to vote in that district. I then went to the Sec of State and changed the address on my drivers license.

Those are MY responsibilities, I MUST meet State and local requirements for driving and voting, OR, don't bother driving or voting. That is how a responsible adult handles his/her's/it's business.

In other words, instead of whining that they are being restricted from voting, people should 'get of their tush' and take care of THEIR business.

It's just not that hard.

OK I got how you did it but here is the thing, it doesn't matter. What our little texan is forgetting is what texas law states and how the state can simply do what other states are doing, issuing ballots early and having them mailed.

Don't get me wrong, there can be a problem voting but to infer that someone needs to get their donkey in the car, without understanding the situation or the reasoning behind a decision by the DoJ seems to reek of a problem with the poster and a rather ethnic slur.
 
Top