This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
buzz3070
I cant belive they are arguing the case in the UN. I wonder when people will finally get that its not to disenfranchise people but to make sure its one vote per person and that person is of age and is a legal citazen of the united states, nothing more, nothing less.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
Irony of the day: Saudi Arabia judging U.S for infringing on democracy.
And Cuba.....and China.....
Post by
Magician22773
So now the Secretary of Defense
does not trust
the US Marines.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Considering the Afghan troops already in there were unarmed....it's a goodish move to try to get back some trust after the nutter from last week.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Its not much of a stretch to say that the government can kill them also.
Well
... it's completely contrary to the notion of not resisting evil.
It's a stupid argument.
More cogently discussed here
.
You aren't a citizen of my country. You aren't welcome here if you don't wish to follow immigration law.
This seems tautological to me.
Here's the history of US immigration
.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
In the case of illegal immigrants, though, they're not actually supposed to be here at all. They'd be voting on how to spend money that they're not paying in taxes, on laws that will make it easier for them to continue to break the law, and on school budgets that will decide how the resources are allocated for the kids whose parents do contribute to the schools. The only reason that they are here waiting the tables, cooking for people who pay taxes, etc., is because they are breaking the law to do so. And, while I understand that it's the best way they can make money and I don't begrudge them it, I don't think that having broken the law to get here means they can now vote on the laws we have.
And, from my experience (since i do know a number of people who are here illegally), the vast majority that I have known leave their wives and families back in their home countries, and send the money back there. They work here for 10, 15 year, and then buy a house back in their native country and retire there. So while it does cheapen labor in our economy, it also tends to be a cash drain on a national level. Which, again, I don't begrudge them, but I don't think it puts them in a position to be allowed to have a voice in our laws and the way we spend our tax money.
After all- democratic government means that we govern ourselves. It shouldn't be allowed that US citizens go into Mexico and vote in officials who will make more favorable trading policies with the US, because that would be us exploiting their system and trying to put someone in power that doesn't necessarily reflect either the best interests or the majority opinion of the people he'll actually be governing. It's the antithesis of a democratic government to let other nations make your decisions for you based on what will be better for their own country.
And that, while it is the major concern of the people who are trying to get the ID laws changed, wouldn't be the specific result I'm most worried about. I think it would totally destroy the individual value of a vote in this country. You already have big businesses and special interest groups that lobby for senators and bills that appeal to their best interests, and person for person wield much more political power than the average citizen. Imagine if the system was changed so that there were no checks and balances on who was voting? It would no longer be one vote for one person- people with agendas to push would be organizing multiple voting runs at different polling locations to tip the odds. Lobbying groups could arrange to make sure that they're specific representative is elected, even if he's not the majority choice, because they have the money to facilitate something like that.
You'd also have no real say in your own state government about more localized laws, because they couldn't check that people were residents of the state. It means that for hot-button issues, like gay marriage, abortion, etc. you'd have people coming from all over the country to change the laws in your state according to their own beliefs. Regular people would lose a voice.
Remember a few months back when people were all congratulating Russia on having 120% of the population come out to vote? That would be us.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
on laws that will make it easier for them to continue to break the law
I don't think referendums are the issue. The issue is that you're conflating voter ID with voter registration. As far as I'm aware, the current method is that one registers to vote and then when you turn up on voting day (with a piece of paper sent to the registered address? Not sure precisely how it works in the US), then they tick you off the list of attendees. The "same name going to multiple polling stations" thing won't help a bit in that case. What voter IDs do is combat voting fraud: claiming to be another individual registered to vote (and obviously one can't use the same name in two districts or return to the same voting district). The issue is, there isn't significant voter fraud. The most significant way in which elections are rigged is through political manipulation: the government gerrymandering or excluding minority voters as in the Florida election (who overwhelmingly vote Democrat). Why do voter IDs harm minorities? Because they're disproportionately likely to be poor and thus less able to afford federally recognised IDs. In the thread I linked, someone posted about having to drive two hours to pick up a driving licence (presumably someone drove him there). Also, prop 19 didn't require a urine sample.
it also tends to be a cash drain on a national level.
This doesn't make sense (as a negative): 95% of money in America is in the form of debt and if investment in foreign countries was bad for the economy, it would overwhelmingly be corporations responsible. Sending foreign currency overseas just encourages them to buy American products and if there are fewer dollars in the US, there's less inflation anyway.
be us exploiting their system
Like NAFTA, the cause of perpetual immigration?
Post by
MyTie
I was listening to Stephanie Miller (AM radio liberal personality) this morning, and she explained that it is a HUGE cost burden, to get a state ID card, and this is a burden on poor people, thus, minorities, thus, it is racist.
I don't understand these people.
Post by
OverZealous
I was listening to Stephanie Miller (AM radio liberal personality) this morning, and she explained that it is a HUGE cost burden, to get a state ID card, and this is a burden on poor people, thus, minorities, thus, it is racist.
I don't understand these people.
I'm sorry, but what? Does she imply that burdening poor people is racist? Why is anyone letting her speak on the radio?
Post by
gamerunknown
Does she imply that burdening poor people is racist?
It's not racist. It's classist. But a disproportionate amount of African Americans are unemployed (15% vs. 8%), they had 2/3rd the average household income of white families in 2005 and their lifespan is 6 years below that of the national average. So things that burden the poor are statistically more likely to burden African Americans than whites. I don't think many members of the Republican party care any more, or at least they certainly wouldn't explicitly state that. Whether one wants to view it as
dog whistle
politics or not is another matter.
Post by
MyTie
So, perhaps a
New York Times double standard
in favor of Islam. How would an article telling Muslims to quit Islam be viewed?
dog whistle
politics or not is another matter.State's Rights hasn't been a racist position since Jefferson Davis left office.
Post by
Adamsm
Or, a way to stir up interest in a media that is slowly being driven out of business due to the internet.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Either it's an open ad space that they don't censor, and they should have run both ads, or it is a space that they reserve the right to not sell when they feel the content would be offensive and/or bigoted, and they should have blocked both ads. I agree it's a double standard to run one and not the other. Personally, I feel the ads are both in poor taste, and would have refused both.
Post by
149406
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
To be fair, when's the last time you've heard a Catholic make a death threat?
Or cite
Deuteronomy 22:28
as "traditional marriage"?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.