If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   Voting machines in swing states brought to you by the friends of Bain Capital   (thedailydolt.com) divider line 279
    More: Obvious, Bain Capital, voting machines, swing states, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

8378 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2012 at 8:33 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



279 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-11 10:24:30 AM

Thallone1: Dafatone: craig328: why do we have a political party that relies on felons and people illegally in the country to win elections?

Relies on?

Every recent effort to block illegal immigrants from voting (voter roll purges, ID laws,) would block many more legal voters than illegal ones. Estimates say a few million legal voters could have been disenfranchised countrywide by the recent wave of ID laws. Florida tried to purge 180,000 voters from the registry, many of whom were legal.

But no. It's totally that Democrats rely on the illegal vote, and not that stopping millions of legal voters from voting sucks.

Interesting viewpoint. Try squaring this : we shouldn't have to show id to exercise the right to vote, but we *must* show id to exercise the right to bear arms.

Also, you are required to have photo id to drive or cash a check at the bank, how many people would honestly not have an id that would allow that?


I totally agree with your first sentence. As for your second. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. And cashing a check at a bank is a private transaction with a private institution, hence subject to that institution's rules. If you don't like them bank elsewhere, or start your own bank that doesn't ask for ID. You won't be in business very long.
 
2012-10-11 10:24:50 AM

Callous: Headso: MyRandomName: The fact is it is nearly impossible to identify in person voting fraud because the only way to find it is by checking id. Of course this is outlawed. So the only good means of checking for in person fraud is not allowed.

this is not even true, they have just recently had stories of audits they did and they found a small amount of people that signed up to vote illegally and the majority were legal immigrants that thought they could vote legally but couldn't.

The republicans in this thread still refuse to acknowledge that you have to sign an affidavit where lying on it is a federal felony and that our whole court system operates under the the fact that an affidavit is legitimate.

You are aware that if I sign a false name on a false affidavit and no one checked my ID, once I walk out the door they have no clue who I am right?

BTW, they check ID at courthouses.


look into reality before you go off the derp end. Info for voters in NY:
If your name does not appear on the list of registered voters or if your signature is missing from that list, you will be given an affidavit ballot and an envelope in which to seal it in. At the close of the polls, the sealed envelopes are brought back to the Board of Elections offices where your registration will be verified before your ballot is canvassed.
 
2012-10-11 10:25:16 AM

Lunaville: Two people have questioned the value of a paper receipt indicating that the vote actually cast could differ from that listed on the receipt. In an uncontested election, the paper receipt would have little or no value. In a contested election, the paper receipts would be counted. Any statistically significant difference between the voter verified paper receipts and the machine count would warrant an investigation into the reliability and maintenance of the machines as well as into the company that manufactures and/or operates the machines. It is very likely that each political party would benefit from that extra measure of oversight in some place, at some point. A paper trail, in the event of a contested election, benefits all political parties, the election process, and the voter.


But... but... union THUGS counting receipts!!

/never bought the argument against a paper trail.
 
2012-10-11 10:25:25 AM

nyseattitude: There is also this


That's a neat listing of voting machine errors, none of which actually changed the outcome of an election, nor was there any showing that they favored one side deliberately.

Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters.

This is machine failure and bad coding, which is one of the many reasons why many think electronic voting is a bad idea. It's probably inevitable that it will eventually come to pass.

What you're not showing is any systematic attempt to change elections, where the Democrats on the other hand are trying to systematically disenfranchise armed forces and keep ID out of the polling place so the dead, illegal and criminal can all vote Democratic.
 
2012-10-11 10:25:50 AM

lordjupiter: Why did this story only come out after Obama crapped out in the debate and Romney finally passed him in the polls?


He didn't crap out! It was the altitude. And, he threw it. Yeah, he did that on purpose. Part of his strategy. Plus he was making truthful statements. It doesn't matter that people said he "lost" the debate because winning a debate has nothing to do with making truthful statements it's just a popularity contest. And he had a country to run, no time to practice debating.
 
2012-10-11 10:25:50 AM

sodomizer: After all, liberalism is a mental disease spread through misery.


So, how many times do you have to say something to make it true? Is it a set number, or does it work on a sort of sliding scale?
 
2012-10-11 10:26:26 AM

Crewmannumber6: I've never trusted e-voting. Once my ballot is entered, the 1's and 0's can be manipulated into whatever.


Which is why a voting machine should only be a means to mark your vote, not record it. Voting machines are a good way to avoid the hassles of the 2000 election, with hanging chads and all that, because you touch the screen where you want, and there's no confusion. But the machine should then print a ballot (not a receipt), which you can examine if you want, and then drop in the box like we used to. The machines can leave a digital trail, to match up to the ballots, but your actual vote should be on tamper-resistant paper. Any extra expense would be worth it.
 
2012-10-11 10:27:28 AM

sweetmanbrosia: It's hard to find a company that is not in some way owned or operated by Romney or Bain Capital. Take me for instance, in 1998 Bain Capital purchased majority shares in me, restructured me, and then sold me to the highest bidder.


You sound black



/wat what???
 
2012-10-11 10:32:50 AM
When Al Franken won by 312 votes after endless recounts, 12000 absentee ballets were thrown out and 177 people were convicted of voter fraud for voting while being a felon. Franken was the 60th vote in the senate that allowed Obamacare to go through. Republicans are a high majority of absentee voters, and I would imagine felons would be more likely to vote for Democrats.
Voter fraud exists and it can affect elections. Requiring ID would not prevent felons from voting, but it would prevent the dead from voting in person. A new type of verification system is needed for absentee ballots because election officials are not handwriting experts, and throwing away 12000 ballots in an election won by 312 votes is completely unacceptable.
One article I read suggested the purple finger be used to identify those who have voted. I think that would be a great idea. It would keep people from voting more than once, and it could identify those who weren't eligible to vote who did.
 
2012-10-11 10:33:11 AM

sodomizer: systematically disenfranchise armed forces


a lie debunked in this very thread
 
2012-10-11 10:34:29 AM

Headso: Callous: Headso: MyRandomName: The fact is it is nearly impossible to identify in person voting fraud because the only way to find it is by checking id. Of course this is outlawed. So the only good means of checking for in person fraud is not allowed.

this is not even true, they have just recently had stories of audits they did and they found a small amount of people that signed up to vote illegally and the majority were legal immigrants that thought they could vote legally but couldn't.

The republicans in this thread still refuse to acknowledge that you have to sign an affidavit where lying on it is a federal felony and that our whole court system operates under the the fact that an affidavit is legitimate.

You are aware that if I sign a false name on a false affidavit and no one checked my ID, once I walk out the door they have no clue who I am right?

BTW, they check ID at courthouses.

look into reality before you go off the derp end. Info for voters in NY:
If your name does not appear on the list of registered voters or if your signature is missing from that list, you will be given an affidavit ballot and an envelope in which to seal it in. At the close of the polls, the sealed envelopes are brought back to the Board of Elections offices where your registration will be verified before your ballot is canvassed.


Look into reality. In the state of MA all the registered voters' names and addresses are posted on the wall just inside the door. All you need to get handed a ballot is to be able to spit out a name and matching address that you just read on the list by the door.

And do you consider that voter repression since they are asking for ID? What about the people that are registered and their signature is there? Do they just hand a ballot to anyone who says they are that person?
 
2012-10-11 10:34:44 AM

Thallone1: Dafatone: craig328: why do we have a political party that relies on felons and people illegally in the country to win elections?

Relies on?

Every recent effort to block illegal immigrants from voting (voter roll purges, ID laws,) would block many more legal voters than illegal ones. Estimates say a few million legal voters could have been disenfranchised countrywide by the recent wave of ID laws. Florida tried to purge 180,000 voters from the registry, many of whom were legal.

But no. It's totally that Democrats rely on the illegal vote, and not that stopping millions of legal voters from voting sucks.

Interesting viewpoint. Try squaring this : we shouldn't have to show id to exercise the right to vote, but we *must* show id to exercise the right to bear arms.

Also, you are required to have photo id to drive or cash a check at the bank, how many people would honestly not have an id that would allow that?


But haven't you heard? Requiring voters to have legal identification is racist and disenfranchises minorities and the poor.

Citations: here and here.

How the FARK is requiring someone to have legal ID a racist move?

The stupid...it burns...
 
2012-10-11 10:35:31 AM

acad1228: Democrat wins) Repubs: "Damn! We lost!"


You haven't been paying attention apparently. Obama winning in 2008 made the republicans completely lose their shiat. They were criticizing the guy within two weeks of his winning the election about policies he hadn't even implemented. The Tea Party, birthers, college transcripts, arugula, fancy mustard, secret Muslim, socialist, unelected Czars, marxist, etc. all sprang up out of Republicans' disbelief over losing to the black guy.
 
2012-10-11 10:36:12 AM

Lunaville: Two people have questioned the value of a paper receipt indicating that the vote actually cast could differ from that listed on the receipt. In an uncontested election, the paper receipt would have little or no value. In a contested election, the paper receipts would be counted. Any statistically significant difference between the voter verified paper receipts and the machine count would warrant an investigation into the reliability and maintenance of the machines as well as into the company that manufactures and/or operates the machines. It is very likely that each political party would benefit from that extra measure of oversight in some place, at some point. A paper trail, in the event of a contested election, benefits all political parties, the election process, and the voter.


I'm all for this.
 
2012-10-11 10:37:45 AM

digitalrain: Requiring voters to have legal identification is racist and disenfranchises minorities and the poor.


Try "Requiring voters to have legal identification is more likely to affect the poor, of whom a large number are minorities."
 
2012-10-11 10:38:43 AM

MarkEC: One article I read suggested the purple finger be used to identify those who have voted. I think that would be a great idea. It would keep people from voting more than once, and it could identify those who weren't eligible to vote who did.


Yes, and it would show up really well on one particular skin tone, and not likely be seen at all on another skin tone. Pure coincidence, I'm certain.
 
2012-10-11 10:43:01 AM

sodomizer: nyseattitude: There is also this

That's a neat listing of voting machine errors, none of which actually changed the outcome of an election, nor was there any showing that they favored one side deliberately.

Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters.

This is machine failure and bad coding, which is one of the many reasons why many think electronic voting is a bad idea. It's probably inevitable that it will eventually come to pass.

What you're not showing is any systematic attempt to change elections, where the Democrats on the other hand are trying to systematically disenfranchise armed forces and keep ID out of the polling place so the dead, illegal and criminal can all vote Democratic.


Shouldn't you be studying Breitbart articles and Glen Beck re-runs for the Debate tonight?
 
2012-10-11 10:43:16 AM
DNRT whole farking thread, but let me just say this. Voting machine fraud or not...the fact that there are so many idiots like sodomizer who buy all of this bullshiat and actually would want to vote for Rmoney means that we have already lost. There is no way that this should even be a contest, all of the facts, logic, and common sense point to the democrat platform being more effective economically. Unfortunately fact, logic, and common sense does not apply to the GOP base. All we can hope for is that the GOP base dies of old age before our nation fails.
 
2012-10-11 10:44:43 AM

acad1228: Setting up those excuses early, are we?Republican wins) Dems: "They stole the election!"Democrat wins) Repubs: "Damn! We lost! We had better do everything we can to keep them from getting anything reasonable or responsible done so we can win the next one by blaming him"


FTFY
 
2012-10-11 10:44:53 AM

EyeballKid: MarkEC: One article I read suggested the purple finger be used to identify those who have voted. I think that would be a great idea. It would keep people from voting more than once, and it could identify those who weren't eligible to vote who did.

Yes, and it would show up really well on one particular skin tone, and not likely be seen at all on another skin tone. Pure coincidence, I'm certain.


WTF are you referring to. I know of no one who's finger prints would hide a purple dye. Harder to see from a distance maybe, but not enough to walk in and vote more than once. Unless we have purple aliens from Saturn voting in our elections.
 
2012-10-11 10:47:31 AM
THIS is why Obama is going to *lose* the election in November.

ireporters.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-11 10:47:48 AM

Callous: All you need to get handed a ballot is to be able to spit out a name and matching address that you just read on the list by the door.


and if you happened to have picked someone who had already voted or will come to vote later you have just committed a federal felony in front of respected members of the community, If you don't mind committing federal felonies you probably are not a big voter to begin with. All your crackpot scenarios involve some ocean's 11 esque conspiracy all to get 1 extra vote, it's idiotic.
 
2012-10-11 10:48:02 AM

GoldSpider: digitalrain: Requiring voters to have legal identification is racist and disenfranchises minorities and the poor.

Try "Requiring voters to have legal identification is more likely to affect the poor, of whom a large number are minorities."


I'm not the one saying its' racist. I think the whole "THAT'S RACIST" argument is stupid.
 
2012-10-11 10:48:40 AM

Arthurgoboom: .the fact that there are so many idiots like sodomizer who buy all of this bullshiat and actually would want to vote for Rmoney means that we have already lost.


What bullshiat have I bought into?

Romney's a better leader and I like what he'll do with this country more than what Obama will do (and has done).

That's all I as a voter am required to do.

And your problem with this, other than that you disagree of course, is what exactly?
 
2012-10-11 10:49:20 AM

GoldSpider: digitalrain: Requiring voters to have legal identification is racist and disenfranchises minorities and the poor.

Try "Requiring voters to have legal identification is more likely to affect the poor, of whom a large number are minorities."


Make them free. Problem solved.
 
2012-10-11 10:50:48 AM

Headso: Considering republicans are not above rigging the election through disenfranchisement it would not be that surprising.


Considering democrats are not above rigging the election through voter fraud it would not be that surprising.
 
2012-10-11 10:52:04 AM

Headso: and if you happened to have picked someone who had already voted or will come to vote later you have just committed a federal felony in front of respected members of the community,


And people who want free handouts care why?
 
2012-10-11 10:52:34 AM

digitalrain: I'm not the one saying its' racist. I think the whole "THAT'S RACIST" argument is stupid.


I know you aren't; I'm saying the argue has SOME merit. It is a FACT that voter ID requirements disproportionately affect minorities, and while that in and of itself is not proof of specific intent, it's reasonable, I believe, to at least question the motives of the laws' proponents.
 
2012-10-11 10:53:30 AM
OH - and another thing.... the whole premise of the opposition to these voter ID laws is that requiring
legal ID in order to vote is unfair to the poor - a large number of whom happen to be minorities, right?

Don't most states require some form of legal ID in order to apply for welfare benefits?

Presumably, people who are ON welfare already have one of the required forms of ID under the
voter ID laws. So why is requiring it for welfare eligibility OK but requiring it to vote is unfair?
 
2012-10-11 10:53:40 AM

Headso: Callous: All you need to get handed a ballot is to be able to spit out a name and matching address that you just read on the list by the door.

and if you happened to have picked someone who had already voted or will come to vote later you have just committed a federal felony in front of respected members of the community, If you don't mind committing federal felonies you probably are not a big voter to begin with. All your crackpot scenarios involve some ocean's 11 esque conspiracy all to get 1 extra vote, it's idiotic.


And I'm sure that if I were to do that in the morning that when the real person comes in in the evening everyone is going to remember exactly who I was amongst the thousands of people that filed through the place that day. Oh wait they didn't ID me, they have no idea who I was and therefore can't charge me. Where I vote is in a middle school gymnasium and there are no cameras. So by the standards established up thread since they have no idea who I was and can't charge me it never happened.
 
2012-10-11 10:54:28 AM

MarkEC: WTF are you referring to. I know of no one who's finger prints would hide a purple dye. Harder to see from a distance maybe, but not enough to walk in and vote more than once. Unless we have purple aliens from Saturn voting in our elections.


Uh huh. Or, a poll worker says, "Bwah, whut choo tryin' to do? You dun voted awreddy, get out."
 
2012-10-11 10:55:31 AM

Callous: Make them free. Problem solved.


*Free IDs only available with proper (read: you don't likely have it handy) documentation, at locations inaccessible from your home, during hours when you are at work.

So yeah, not necessarily.
 
2012-10-11 10:58:14 AM

Callous: GoldSpider: digitalrain: Requiring voters to have legal identification is racist and disenfranchises minorities and the poor.

Try "Requiring voters to have legal identification is more likely to affect the poor, of whom a large number are minorities."

Make them free. Problem solved.


In Pennsylvania they are free. Yet the courts blocked enforcement of the voter ID law for this year.
 
2012-10-11 11:00:48 AM

MarkEC: In Pennsylvania they are free. Yet the courts blocked enforcement of the voter ID law for this year.


One of the reasons was that they were still relatively difficult to obtain.
 
2012-10-11 11:01:22 AM

JackieRabbit:

I have never trusted electronic voting machines. The systems are too easy to manipulate at a number of points. But it really doesn't make any difference anymore. I some voter precincts, such as mine, if you aren't voting Republican, there's no need to go to the polls. It's a waste of time, since you are such a small minority, your vote won't count anyway in winner-take-all states and there will never be a Democrat or independent on the ballot for local offices.


Same with where I live, I am a Democrat but it's pointless for me to vote since the way the electorials work it's of no value to vote. I really would love to see the EC taken away.
 
2012-10-11 11:01:40 AM

MarkEC: In Pennsylvania they are free. Yet the courts blocked enforcement of the voter ID law for this year.


How expensive are they that "the poor" (a media creation, since there's no uniformity to the group) can't afford them? Don't they need them for other things? Is it a question of sacrificing something non-essential (cable TV) for something essential (ID)?
 
2012-10-11 11:03:41 AM

Callous: Headso: Callous: All you need to get handed a ballot is to be able to spit out a name and matching address that you just read on the list by the door.

and if you happened to have picked someone who had already voted or will come to vote later you have just committed a federal felony in front of respected members of the community, If you don't mind committing federal felonies you probably are not a big voter to begin with. All your crackpot scenarios involve some ocean's 11 esque conspiracy all to get 1 extra vote, it's idiotic.

And I'm sure that if I were to do that in the morning that when the real person comes in in the evening everyone is going to remember exactly who I was amongst the thousands of people that filed through the place that day. Oh wait they didn't ID me, they have no idea who I was and therefore can't charge me. Where I vote is in a middle school gymnasium and there are no cameras. So by the standards established up thread since they have no idea who I was and can't charge me it never happened.


for one those votes wouldn't be counted and for two there would be an investigation because it is a federal felony, you know, kind of a serious crime... Can you come up with a single farking reason why a person would commit such a crime unless you truly believe that there are people out there who are such zealots for the democratic party they would do that, it's like fundie muslim level of loyalty to allah you'd have to think democrats were the greatest farking thing ever.
 
2012-10-11 11:05:28 AM
For the sake of your country and for the sake of the entire world, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT THIS NOVEMBER!!! 

Stop voting those people into power! No more political parties!
 
2012-10-11 11:07:42 AM

sodomizer: How expensive are they that "the poor" (a media creation, since there's no uniformity to the group) can't afford them? Don't they need them for other things? Is it a question of sacrificing something non-essential (cable TV) for something essential (ID)?


It was a pain in the ass for me to get all of the proper documentation together when I had to get a passport, and that was with the luxury of having time off from work to get it. I can't imagine it's any easier for a poor person.
 
2012-10-11 11:08:16 AM
Looks like Romney has wrapped it up. The dems are already screaming about the machines rigging votes.

/Laughable
 
2012-10-11 11:09:53 AM

GoldSpider: It was a pain in the ass for me to get all of the proper documentation together when I had to get a passport


Are they requiring passports to vote, or state IDs?

What can you do in life without a state ID?
 
2012-10-11 11:12:13 AM

sodomizer: Are they requiring passports to vote, or state IDs?


The point is you need to have certain documentation to get a photo ID, and that documentation isn't always easy to get.

sodomizer: What can you do in life without a state ID?


Quite a bit, I imagine, if you have no need to drive.
 
2012-10-11 11:12:30 AM
Noone would ever fark with a democratic election.
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-11 11:17:49 AM

GoldSpider: sodomizer: How expensive are they that "the poor" (a media creation, since there's no uniformity to the group) can't afford them? Don't they need them for other things? Is it a question of sacrificing something non-essential (cable TV) for something essential (ID)?

It was a pain in the ass for me to get all of the proper documentation together when I had to get a passport, and that was with the luxury of having time off from work to get it. I can't imagine it's any easier for a poor person.


From my above link:
Persons who want the new Department of State Voter ID will need to provide their

Name
Address
Date of Birth
Social Security number (If the customer has been issued an SSN)
County
Previous name and/or address if changed in the past 12 months.

That is all you need! They search the voter rolls and address info and viola, you get an ID!
 
2012-10-11 11:20:13 AM

MarkEC: Persons who want the new Department of State Voter ID will need to provide their

Name
Address
Date of Birth
Social Security number (If the customer has been issued an SSN)
County
Previous name and/or address if changed in the past 12 months.

That is all you need! They search the voter rolls and address info and viola, you get an ID!


If that were the case, I don't think I'd have seen news reports of people being turned away and told to come back with "proper documentation".
 
2012-10-11 11:21:03 AM

GoldSpider: Callous: Make them free. Problem solved.

*Free IDs only available with proper (read: you don't likely have it handy) documentation, at locations inaccessible from your home, during hours when you are at work.

So yeah, not necessarily.


If what I had to go through to get my gun permit is acceptable for a Constitutionally protected right, getting your sorry arse to the registry to get a free ID is acceptable. If you can't get to the registry on any day of the week that you choose how do you get to the polling place on a specific day of the year?
 
2012-10-11 11:21:33 AM

GoldSpider: digitalrain: Requiring voters to have legal identification is racist and disenfranchises minorities and the poor.

Try "Requiring voters to have legal identification is more likely to affect the poor, of whom a large number are minorities."


Requiring voters to have legal identification is more likely to affect idiots that I don't want selecting the president anyway. The problem solves itself.
 
2012-10-11 11:21:34 AM
Not this shiat again. So the same machines that was rigged in '04 was working fine in '08, amirite?
 
2012-10-11 11:22:05 AM
I just... I'm out of disgust. The democrats are going to loose Ohio because of this crap, I'd bet money on it. I farking weep and scream for the soul of this country. I don't necessarily want democrats to win but I do want a government that works and is functional at whatever level we the people set. The republicans, they simply hate all government now, all of it, unless it's to enforce strict biblical law. How is this unlike the Taliban? And ends justify the means, apparently, because they already bought Ohio. farkers!
 
2012-10-11 11:23:32 AM

digitalrain: OH - and another thing.... the whole premise of the opposition to these voter ID laws is that requiring
legal ID in order to vote is unfair to the poor - a large number of whom happen to be minorities, right?

Don't most states require some form of legal ID in order to apply for welfare benefits?

Presumably, people who are ON welfare already have one of the required forms of ID under the
voter ID laws. So why is requiring it for welfare eligibility OK but requiring it to vote is unfair?


I lived for nearly two decades as a young adult with no ID. I did not own a car. The nice lady who managed the largest bank in my hometown had been my mothers' best friend in high school. She knew the only DMV was on the other side of the county and that I would need a car to get there. She vouched for me and I opened an account when I was 17 or 18. I sometimes had employers cash my checks for me anyway, but my grandparents taught me to save so I opened a savings account. I did not have a checking account.

I have never been on welfare. My family did qualify for free lunch when my siblings and I were kids, but, despite my cheap-ass fathers' protestations, we refused to accept it. Back then, to receive free lunch, the homeroom teacher called your name out aloud and you had to do a walk of shame in front of the whole class to get your free lunch token. As I left home at 17 and worked two to three jobs at a time to support myself and put myself through school, I resent that you think everyone who is working class is on welfare.

I am old enough to remember when my flimsy, paper voter registration card was all I needed to vote. The county I was from was sparsely populated. The only polling station was downtown on the campus of the local military school. The first election I was eligible to vote, I walked over, greeted some of the school staff I was acquainted with and got in line. Shortly thereafter, someone mentioned that my grandmother was some distance behind me in line. At that time in my life, I was very enthusiastic about Ronald Reagan. My grandmother had been a dedicated Democrat since FDR. She knew I planned to vote for Reagan. She shouted "Don't vote for that bastard Reagan, don't do it!"

I shouted back "I'm voting for Reagan and no one can stop me!"

She shouted "I'll may disown you if you vote for that s.o.b.!"

I returned with "I'm pulling the straight party lever! KA-CHING!

A Colonel employed with the school and supervising the elections became alarmed and said that we were engaging in campaigning within xx number of feet of the polling place and if we didn't cease he would have to pull us out of line.

I didn't have another remark made that could have been interpreted as an attempt to impinge on my right to vote until the nonsense about voter ID became fashionable. Then, some senile old bat looked at me with her cataract dimmed eyes and said "Gosh, I just don't know if I can let you vote." I had gotten married several weeks before hand. I had my voter registration card with my new name, a temporary license with my new name, proof of address, a drivers' license, a birth certificate, and my marriage license.

And old bat said "Gosh, I just don't know if I can let you vote."

I said "Call security." Fortunately, it was a few years before 9-11 and a police officer present persuaded nice old dingbat to let me vote thereby saving me from going to jail.

Someday, I 'm going snap, stop repressing myself and post a full fledged autobiography, minimum 300 pages, on FARK.
 
Displayed 50 of 279 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report