2011-03-17, 12:51 AM
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-...sufficient
Good section that discusses massive issues with consequences resulting from passage of the bill:
The bottom line is, like I said, this is a "fix" for something that doesn't need fixing. Wisconsin has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country along with practically nonexistent voter fraud, yet you're trying to tell me this is a good thing. Again, in theory it seems reasonable, but when you start applying what the bill says to reality you discover situations such as those listed above, which lead to more fraud and, as the bolded section indicates, potential for downright illegal ballot stuffing.
EDIT: All this aside, I just read your post in response to Eos that is supposed to somehow substantiate your crackpot claims, but all it does is make radical, Tea Party-esque statements that are ridiculous at best, with no - and here's the kicker - substantial articles to back them up. Do you even know what "substantial" or "substantiate" means? In the context of how Eos and I are using it, it means POST YOUR SOURCES. Which you have consistently failed to do until your last two posts in this thread.
Bottom line is, all of this compounded with debates I've had with you in the past leads me to deduce you're most likely a crackpot Tea Party conspiracy theorist, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore. Throw whatever drivel you feel you must my way and I'll shrug it off and move forward.
Good section that discusses massive issues with consequences resulting from passage of the bill:
Article Wrote:Having a photo ID is no guarantee of voter eligibility.
Convicted felons have photo ID. Are we going to tell Grandma working at the polls to argue with suspected convicted felons and require these ladies to act as bouncers? That is insane and unreasonable. Grandma is probably going to resign her position.
People who have moved and have not yet updated their address have photo ID, but they are no longer qualified to vote at their old address. Theoretically, they could vote in two different places. At the same time. No one checks.
People who have recently changed their name (marriage, name change, etc) may have a difficult time quickly tracking down all the documentation required to registered to vote in their new name. Does anyone understand what a true inconvenience (and how time consuming) it is to gather up several different documents from several different places just to get your name changed on your driver's license? It can takes months. Ladies, if voting is important to you, make sure to schedule your wedding to avoid conflicting election dates. Do not get married in the six months prior to an election.
I don't want to miss an election just because I had to wait for my Arizona birth certificate to be processed and mailed to me, while I am waiting for my Nevada divorce papers to arrive in the mail so then I can get my new marriage license and my legal name change papers from Wisconsin and then try to endlessly explain to the DMV clerk how to piece it all together and if they succeed at doing that, then I have to wait for Madison to verify it and process it and wait about two weeks to get it in the mail. Wow, I'm too worn out to vote now!
The bottom line is, like I said, this is a "fix" for something that doesn't need fixing. Wisconsin has one of the highest voter turnouts in the country along with practically nonexistent voter fraud, yet you're trying to tell me this is a good thing. Again, in theory it seems reasonable, but when you start applying what the bill says to reality you discover situations such as those listed above, which lead to more fraud and, as the bolded section indicates, potential for downright illegal ballot stuffing.
EDIT: All this aside, I just read your post in response to Eos that is supposed to somehow substantiate your crackpot claims, but all it does is make radical, Tea Party-esque statements that are ridiculous at best, with no - and here's the kicker - substantial articles to back them up. Do you even know what "substantial" or "substantiate" means? In the context of how Eos and I are using it, it means POST YOUR SOURCES. Which you have consistently failed to do until your last two posts in this thread.
Bottom line is, all of this compounded with debates I've had with you in the past leads me to deduce you're most likely a crackpot Tea Party conspiracy theorist, so I'm not going to bother wasting my time anymore. Throw whatever drivel you feel you must my way and I'll shrug it off and move forward.