Silly Jesus: www.jookos.com

Most of those things don't require an ID and only three of them aren't strictly private transactions. None of them are rights.

So, basically, your fancy graphic is mostly wrong to begin with, and even where it's not, it mostly refers to the requirements placed on private transactions by private parties that can set whatever restrictions they want.

Have you been sufficiently embarrassed for posting such a foolish thing or would you like to try and press the flimsy tatters of your horrendously disingenuous argument in favor of preventing people from participating in one of the most fundamental defenses of liberty possible?

Silly Jesus: [www.jookos.com image 640x480]

That's pretty much a pack of lies.

- It's possible to board an airplane without valid id. I've done it. The TSA asks you a bunch of questions to prove that you are who you say you are. Things like "what's your brother's middle name?", and "who lives at (address of a close relative)?"

- You can be admitted into a hospital without id, happens all the time. Dr's offices are private businesses and they get to decide under what conditions they will accept your business.

- There is no requirement to show id to apply for a job. I've done it many time.

- Nope, picked up a prescription for my son and a co-worker the other day. Just told them the names and they handed me the drugs. No id involved.

- I'm able to make bank transactions online with my username and password.

- I don't recall sending id along with my applications for University. Of course that was some time ago, perhaps that has changed.

- I never showed id to get my utilities hooked up. They knew where I lived :-)

- When I bought my car my dealer registered it for me. I never had to show my id for that.

- Just got a free HIV test on Friday. Took 20 minutes, but required no id.

- Haven't donated blood in a while, but they never asked for ID when I did. Has this changed?

- Pretty sure you caan buy a firearm at a gun show without showing ID, and you can definitely do that if you a buying from a private individual.

- Last few times I wrote a check I didn't need to show ID.

- Definitely don't need to show ID to use a credit card. I don't even sign my cards and they almost never ask for ID.

- Have bought train tickets online without showing ID.

- I just give them my library card when I want to check out a book. I don't have to show ID.

- I've never had to show ID to apply to rent an apartment.

Again, pack of lies. Why are you repeating them?

Silly Jesus: [www.jookos.com image 640x480]

What part of "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election...shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax" do you not understand? Even if it isn't racist, requiring someone to give money to the government is, according to every conservative ever, a tax. If you have to pay money to the state to get an ID, and you have to have an ID to vote, then you are de facto paying a tax to vote.

Geez, I'm surprised Republicans even bother to do this anymore. I mean, they've already proven the truth of what that commie Lenin or Stalin said about how it doesn't matter who votes as much as it does who counts the votes. And with all of those nice, new, pitifully insecure electronic ballot boxes made by good old Amurikan corporate people like Diebold, nothing could possibly go worng. Amirite?

\And if things get tight for the GOP, they've always got SCOTUS to fall back on. Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc., etc.

There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Subby is a moron who shouldn't be allowed to vote. http://www.theledger.com/article/20120518/POLITICS/120519309

Silly Jesus: Not sure how this is a big enough deal for either side to be OUTRAGED!11!!!!1!

Because you have no idea how the purge works. Here's how it works:

1) Florida suspects you are a non-citizen based on whatever they feel like. This might total around 180,000 people.
2) Florida removes their eligibility to vote and issues them a notice they are not eligible to vote.
3) Should that person choose, they can take the extra step to wander in to vote. Presumably most will, some will find it annoying just to cast a vote and will not vote.

Silly Jesus: And the Democrats are outraged that two ballots were removed?

No. So far we've spent lots of time effort and money to bust two people. The suspected non-citizens who have to prove themselves also are in specifically targeted groups that tend to vote (D). The outrage is Florida is going through the voters and if chances are they vote (D) they are called a non-citizen and told to prove otherwise. Taxpayers are paying for Florida to suppress the (D) vote and in return, busted two people.

You're welcome for explaining it to you. Next time you might search out the info yourself before drawing conclusions.

Silly Jesus: I have always been asked for ID [to board an airplane]. Especially post 9/11. The one time that I forgot it I was made to go all the way out to the parking lot to retrieve it from my car before I could go further.

If you had told them that you simply didn't have it, then you would have gone through the TSA question and answer bit. Try it sometime -- though I recommend you do it when you have time to spare and preferably at an uncrowded airport to avoid creating unnecessary hassle for everyone. I did this about 6 months ago when I lost my drivers license just before a business trip.

[other examples clipped for brevity]

Just because things aren't how you've experienced them does not mean that they are not that way for anyone.

Agreed. And just because things like IDs are often used to make things easier for people, doesn't mean that IDs are required. Wanna fix your graphic? Just change it to say "IDs are commonly used for:"

The larger point being that there are things in everyday life that many, many people use ID for and no one is OMG THAT BURDEN IS INSURMOUNTABLE !!!1!!!!1!!!111!! OMG, ID'S ARE RAAAAACIST!!!!!11!!!1!!

First, you don't serve your larger point by posting false information to back it up.

Second, I'm not claiming that IDs are racist, but that a requirement for IDs disproportionately impacts people who are inclined to vote Democratic.

Third, I use a photo ID when I vote, for convenience, but don't wish to be denied my right to vote if I happen to lose my ID on election day or forget to bring it to the polling station.

In almost all of these cases there are exceptions made for people who don't have IDs available. Even driving you might get a ticket if you don't have your operators license on you when pulled over, but they won't prohibit you from continuing to drive as long as the records show that you are a licensed driver, and that ticket is dismissed if you appear in court with your license in hand.

So, the larger point that you are missing is that in almost none of these cases is the ID mandated by law in order to perform the activity. Given that we aren't really seeing any significant problem of voting by ineligible people, why put people through unnecessary hassles to prevent it? Especially when there is a real risk that it will disenfranchise people who legitimately should be able to vote?

Silverstaff: 12349876: domenad: There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Are there actually people voting under those names? I don't give a shiat if Benjamin Franklin is on the voter roll so long as nobody is voting under that name.

Exactly.

When somebody dies, or moves out of the jurisdiction, it's usually not a first priority to strike them from voter registration.

How many of these entries on the rolls were actually voting when they shouldn't have been?

This purge shortly before a national election is rather suspicious, they could have begun it some time back.

As I said upthread, the Bush Administration spent millions of dollars and months of time, and didn't find a single case of this happening.

So...between "none" and "very few".

Whereas some of the voter ID laws either in force today or under consideration would effectively disenfranchise millions and millions of people.

So, why is it that Republicans are so gung-ho about solving a problem that doesn't exist, but whose solution just so happens to prevent millions of people from voting, people who tend to vote Democratic? Why indeed...

Anderson's Pooper: Lord Dimwit

That's probably the strongest argument I've heard from the anti-ID side but I still don't buy it. The state ID has many and various uses, only one of which involves going to the polls. If I pay $40 for a driver's license, how much of it is a "poll tax?" I drive daily but only vote 2-3 times per year. I can also use my license to cash checks, get on an airplane and many other things.

And to take your argument to an extreme, I pay taxes on the gas I use to drive to the polls, is that a poll tax? If I vote by absentee ballot, does the cost of the stamp count? It's all money paid to the government so I can exercise my right to vote.

The reason I don't have a problem with an ID check is that there are too many idiots, on both sides, who decide on the day of the election that the system is rigged against them because they haven't bothered to get their ducks in a row. Intelligent, reasoned voting is not a one day experience. You have 5 months between now and election day. Primaries have been going on since March. If you want to vote, go to your election board NOW. If you wait until the day of or the day before, don't be surprised when you run into problems. You're not being suppressed, you're being unprepared.

The difference, and of course it's approaching academic, is that you don't have to drive to the polls. You can walk, ride your bike, crawl, whatever you want. You don't have to vote by mail. In the proposed scenarios you must have an ID regardless of the mechanism you use to vote or how you get to the polls. You can vote without paying gasoline taxes or for stamps (it may not be as easy, but it's possible), but in the proposed system, you can't vote without paying for an ID.

As for "being unprepared"...well, "democracy" means everyone gets to vote, even the lazy, the uneducated, the unprepared, the people who were in comas until two hours before the election, the nuns who were in a convent cut off from the world until five minutes before the election, and yes, even the Democrats. :)

My university's college republicans (without identifying themselves as such) were registering voters on campus at the entrance to the business school. This was in September. I heard from a couple of people who signed up there and opted to choose Democrat on the form didn't get their registrations complete until mid November. Meanwhile, people who I knew that didn't select a party affiliation or selected Republican received theirs in a timely manner and were able to vote that year.

That's the same College Republican group that held a States' Rights themed party which apparently is a party where you invite your white friends and put up confederate flags as decoration. They of course were calling for the federal government to ban same sex marriage when Massachusetts made it legal. They also observed Robert E. Lee's birthday instead of MLK Jr. day on our university's day off in January. What a shiatty group of cheaters and assholes.

It's a non-story now. The Justice Department has sent Florida a cease and desist letter about purging. Additionally, a federal court has ruled that FL's new law requiring organizations conducting voter registration drives to turn in registration forms within 48 hours of completion or they will be declared invalid is unconstitutional. Sorry GOP but you've failed again.

ImpendingCynic: domenad: There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Imagine that - a regular review of the rolls finds people who died, or moved away but failed to re-register in a new state or county.

It's so discourteous of dead people to not notify the elections board about their updated status.

When a person who has died remains on the voters roll, it is relatively simple to secure an absentee ballot and vote in their name. This can, does, and has happened. That's why this purge is being conducted - reducing the opportunity for fraud is as important as reducing, prosecuting, and eliminating actual fraud. I can explain it to simpletons like you and Splinshints, but I can't comprehend it for you. One simple bastard a day is my limit and thanks to you I'm stocked up.

domenad: There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Are there actually people voting under those names? I don't give a shiat if Benjamin Franklin is on the voter roll so long as nobody is voting under that name.

domenad: There were over 100k names on the rolls of dead and ineligible people.

Imagine that - a regular review of the rolls finds people who died, or moved away but failed to re-register in a new state or county.

It's so discourteous of dead people to not notify the elections board about their updated status.

Farkers are okay with voter fraud because Democrats get the votes. News at 11:00.

What part of illegal don't you understand, subby?

Silly Jesus: And the Democrats are outraged that two ballots were removed?

Actually the Democrats are outraged that thousands of valid voters were removed from the rolls in order to purge the TWO invalid voters. At this rate they won't have any registered voters in Florida once they get done purging invalid voters.

Except, of course, the actual goal isn't to purge invalid voters. The goal is to purge valid voters. So they'll stop long before that. Like right around the time the only districts left to purge are those that have previously gone Republican in prior election cycles.

filter: Strange. I live in Europe. There is no voter registration. Government already knows who its citizens are and where they live. I am sure that would raise privacy concerns in the US.

No, the government already knows. We just like to pretend they don't and so do they.

NewportBarGuy: With so many economic and social issues to deal with, it makes you wonder why the Republicans focus on "voter fraud."

Because under the guise of "voter fraud," they can suppress the vote from groups that tend to vote (D) and win more elections. This is about winning elections for one side, not about fairness in elections.

NewportBarGuy: They even did this sh*t in my state and I live in the truest of blue states in the union.

Speaking of unions, under the guise of "balancing budgets" they destroyed unions. If you look at the top 10 outside donors to politicians, 7 are Republican. The 3 left that are Democrat? Unions. You have 7 groups funded by corporations that are not just allowed to continue but indeed protected by Citizens United that vote (R). It is critical corporations have a right to free speech in this country. But when workers gather together to counter the voice of corporations, they are attacked and destroyed.

Again, it's about winning elections.

NewportBarGuy: We're talking about an infinitesimal percentage of votes in the grand scheme of things.

That's irrelevant, Republicans are going to pretend it is anyways to justify their continued attacks.

I get it. Any effort to keep out dead people, non-citizens and multiple voters is a waste of time. If these didn't benefit the Dems you'd be crapping yourself in rage over it.

So the Republicans are doing this so that minorities (Democrats) can't vote, but they only kicked two off the roles?

So the Republicans are trying to swing the vote their way by removing two ballots?

And the Democrats are outraged that two ballots were removed?

Not sure how this is a big enough deal for either side to be OUTRAGED!11!!!!1!