Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2007-07-24 14:54:16
topal63
. . .
+533|7023

lowing wrote:

topal63 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Actually no, I do know the difference, the OP was addressing the lack of concern by the dems as to who actually voted, and who should be eligable to vote and I suggested that they are eager to have any illegal votes because THEY would be the ones to get them.. I am well aware of the rest of the voting issues, I am just pointing out ONE issue that the dems do not want to fix apparently.

Nothing more nothing less.
Yeah and that illegal votes issue - is BS. Illegal aliens registering to vote - is a fraud - a myth - a fable - a moronic soundbyte - pure misdirection. That (amendment to another) bill is feigned concern - for a system it would rather manipulate - than fix.

Nothing more nothing less.
Explain to me how,with all the illegals in this country and now the fact that the dems want to issue them driver licenses and shit, along with the lack of concern as to who is eligible to vote, that you can not fathom an instance where illegal votes could sway an election even at the local levels in California, Arizona etc...
Honestly that might be a state issue (at the local level). And, considering there is no proof of illegal aliens swaying any past election (or any proof that illegal aliens are, in mass numbers, actually getting registered to vote - ILLEGALLY) - I'd have to say your paranoia is bizarre (to me; IMO).

I am more concerned with the following:
a.) Gerrymandering districts.
b.) Big money, soft money, money in general, and its corrupting influence on Elections (and the process, who is being represented - people or big-money?).
c.) Actual known voter fraud (actual circumstances that do cause one to concern, rather than your hypothetical/fathom-it/might happen scenario).
d.) Veracity of the system (the actual voting machines where it is easy to manipulate the results).

P.S. That illegal alien thing is an up in the air issue - if amnesty is granted - then it is moot. Then you can be angry about them being granted amnesty.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-25 07:30:43)

2007-07-24 17:07:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

" Does your senator support voter fraud?
By Michelle Malkin  •  July 20, 2007 12:01 AM On the Senate floor right now, members just finished voting on an amendment to a student loan bill that would require voters to show photo ID at the polls. You know, so illegal aliens and other ineligible people don’t undermine the integrity of the election process.

The amendment failed 42-54.

Stand by for the roll…

Here you go:


http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content … oterid.jpg


You’ll notice that not a single Democrat cast a vote in favor of the photo ID requirement for voters."


Taken from
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/20/do … ter-fraud/






Apparently only if it keeps THEM out of office.


I can not WAIT to hear the excuses that  roll in for this.

God I hate liberals
Michelle Malkin is an Ann Coulter wannabe.

Anyway, I agree with the idea of establishing voter ID cards.
2007-07-24 20:27:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6956|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

" Does your senator support voter fraud?
By Michelle Malkin  •  July 20, 2007 12:01 AM On the Senate floor right now, members just finished voting on an amendment to a student loan bill that would require voters to show photo ID at the polls. You know, so illegal aliens and other ineligible people don’t undermine the integrity of the election process.

The amendment failed 42-54.

Stand by for the roll…

Here you go:


http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content … oterid.jpg


You’ll notice that not a single Democrat cast a vote in favor of the photo ID requirement for voters."


Taken from
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/20/do … ter-fraud/






Apparently only if it keeps THEM out of office.


I can not WAIT to hear the excuses that  roll in for this.

God I hate liberals
Michelle Malkin is an Ann Coulter wannabe.

Anyway, I agree with the idea of establishing voter ID cards.
RACIST!!!
2007-07-24 20:31:24
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina
LOL...  Look man, not everyone who is "liberal" sees this as a race issue.  We've come a long way since "literacy tests", so I think ID cards are a necessary development in an age of mass illegal immigration.
2007-07-24 20:40:04
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7021
"Explain to me how,with all the illegals in this country and now the fact that the dems want to issue them driver licenses and shit, along with the lack of concern as to who is eligble to vote, that you can not fathom an instance where illegal votes could sway an election even at the local levels in California, Arizona etc..."

Exactly!...
Love is the answer
2007-07-24 21:15:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6906|132 and Bush

Wasn't the first complaint "hanging chads".. er "butterfly ballot".. ? Blind Seniors in Fl.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-07-24 21:43:54
jonsimon
Member
+224|6800

lowing wrote:

Explain to me how,with all the illegals in this country and now the fact that the dems want to issue them driver licenses and shit, along with the lack of concern as to who is eligble to vote, that you can not fathom an instance where illegal votes could sway an election even at the local levels in California, Arizona etc...
Explain to me why illegal immigrants would risk exposure to vote.

Last edited by jonsimon (2007-07-24 21:44:03)

2007-07-24 22:01:31
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6710|North Carolina

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Explain to me how,with all the illegals in this country and now the fact that the dems want to issue them driver licenses and shit, along with the lack of concern as to who is eligble to vote, that you can not fathom an instance where illegal votes could sway an election even at the local levels in California, Arizona etc...
Explain to me why illegal immigrants would risk exposure to vote.
Apparently, it's not as much of a risk in New Haven, CT though now, is it?...
2007-07-24 22:17:41
jonsimon
Member
+224|6800

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Explain to me how,with all the illegals in this country and now the fact that the dems want to issue them driver licenses and shit, along with the lack of concern as to who is eligble to vote, that you can not fathom an instance where illegal votes could sway an election even at the local levels in California, Arizona etc...
Explain to me why illegal immigrants would risk exposure to vote.
Apparently, it's not as much of a risk in New Haven, CT though now, is it?...
Know this through experience? Or do you have source you can quote saying, "Legal action is not taken against illegal immigrants attempting to vote or register to vote in New Haven, CT."? No?

Don't draw assumptions or jump to conclusions.
2007-07-24 23:17:01
san4
The Mas
+311|6993|NYC, a place to live

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Explain to me how,with all the illegals in this country and now the fact that the dems want to issue them driver licenses and shit, along with the lack of concern as to who is eligble to vote, that you can not fathom an instance where illegal votes could sway an election even at the local levels in California, Arizona etc...
Explain to me why illegal immigrants would risk exposure to vote.
Apparently, it's not as much of a risk in New Haven, CT though now, is it?...
No illegal alien would go near a polling station, even if ID checks are minimal (or they had valid ID). They are desperate to avoid interaction with government personnel. Getting deported would be absolutely catastrophic, especially if it would separate them from children they've had here. I can't fathom an instance where votes by illegal aliens would sway an election because they just want to avoid attention.
2007-07-25 01:18:07
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6956|USA

san4 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

jonsimon wrote:


Explain to me why illegal immigrants would risk exposure to vote.
Apparently, it's not as much of a risk in New Haven, CT though now, is it?...
No illegal alien would go near a polling station, even if ID checks are minimal (or they had valid ID). They are desperate to avoid interaction with government personnel. Getting deported would be absolutely catastrophic, especially if it would separate them from children they've had here. I can't fathom an instance where votes by illegal aliens would sway an election because they just want to avoid attention.
This is a good argument actually, but let me counter with:


"In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990."


taken from http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/060622



now, it doesn't seem that a low profile is of a major concern for a significant number
2007-07-25 01:31:21
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6796|Menlo Park, CA
Michelle Malkin is hot as hell!!

Why is it that Republican pundits are hotter than shit, and the democrap ones are absolute abnoxious dogs??

btw I have never heard of the Dems too concerned about voter fraud. . . .  They certainly werent concerned when JFK was elected in Illinois off blantant voter fraud. . . .hmmm how many dead people voted for JFK that year????
2007-07-25 01:42:56
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6956|USA

fadedsteve wrote:

Michelle Malkin is hot as hell!!

Why is it that Republican pundits are hotter than shit, and the democrap ones are absolute abnoxious dogs??

btw I have never heard of the Dems too concerned about voter fraud. . . .  They certainly werent concerned when JFK was elected in Illinois off blantant voter fraud. . . .hmmm how many dead people voted for JFK that year????
Not true, voter fraud was a major concern to them when they lost the last 2 elections and needed an excuse to cry over it. They wanted to toss out the whole process and invent a new one right then and there. Of course a process that held them as victors, ya know not counting military votes and shit.

Now the issue is making sure illegals don't vote, so all of a sudden voter fraud is blown outta proportion.
2007-07-25 10:23:33
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|7006

lowing wrote:

This is a good argument actually, but let me counter with:


"In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990."


taken from http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/060622



now, it doesn't seem that a low profile is of a major concern for a significant number
you're presenting that report in a misleading fashion. All 55,322 of the illegal aliens in the sample were already in the prison system, meaning they would have had to have been arrested at least once no matter what. Arguing that all illegal aliens, or even a significant amount of them, are not afraid of the government because the ones in prison have been arrested is a specious argument, at best.

Also, the report states that a fair amount of them were arrested on immigration charges, which is kind of the point. Illegal aliens who don't want to be deported or sent to jail are likely to stay away from the government, because the government can arrest or deport them.
2007-07-25 13:26:40
san4
The Mas
+311|6993|NYC, a place to live

Skruples wrote:

lowing wrote:

This is a good argument actually, but let me counter with:


"In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990."


taken from http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/060622



now, it doesn't seem that a low profile is of a major concern for a significant number
you're presenting that report in a misleading fashion. All 55,322 of the illegal aliens in the sample were already in the prison system, meaning they would have had to have been arrested at least once no matter what. Arguing that all illegal aliens, or even a significant amount of them, are not afraid of the government because the ones in prison have been arrested is a specious argument, at best.

Also, the report states that a fair amount of them were arrested on immigration charges, which is kind of the point. Illegal aliens who don't want to be deported or sent to jail are likely to stay away from the government, because the government can arrest or deport them.
And, for what it's worth, keep in mind that, according to that article, there are up to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. The number of people in that study, 55,322, is less than 1/3 of 1% of that.
2007-07-25 13:47:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6956|USA

san4 wrote:

Skruples wrote:

lowing wrote:

This is a good argument actually, but let me counter with:


"In the population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien. Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990."


taken from http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kouri/060622



now, it doesn't seem that a low profile is of a major concern for a significant number
you're presenting that report in a misleading fashion. All 55,322 of the illegal aliens in the sample were already in the prison system, meaning they would have had to have been arrested at least once no matter what. Arguing that all illegal aliens, or even a significant amount of them, are not afraid of the government because the ones in prison have been arrested is a specious argument, at best.

Also, the report states that a fair amount of them were arrested on immigration charges, which is kind of the point. Illegal aliens who don't want to be deported or sent to jail are likely to stay away from the government, because the government can arrest or deport them.
And, for what it's worth, keep in mind that, according to that article, there are up to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. The number of people in that study, 55,322, is less than 1/3 of 1% of that.
To both of you:

These 55000 were arested an average of 8 times each. So again keeping a low profile doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

The word SAMPLE comes into play here, these are not the total arrested out of 2 million, only a "sample".
2007-07-25 15:05:11
Skruples
Mod Incarnate
+234|7006

lowing wrote:

san4 wrote:

Skruples wrote:


you're presenting that report in a misleading fashion. All 55,322 of the illegal aliens in the sample were already in the prison system, meaning they would have had to have been arrested at least once no matter what. Arguing that all illegal aliens, or even a significant amount of them, are not afraid of the government because the ones in prison have been arrested is a specious argument, at best.

Also, the report states that a fair amount of them were arrested on immigration charges, which is kind of the point. Illegal aliens who don't want to be deported or sent to jail are likely to stay away from the government, because the government can arrest or deport them.
And, for what it's worth, keep in mind that, according to that article, there are up to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. The number of people in that study, 55,322, is less than 1/3 of 1% of that.
To both of you:

These 55000 were arested an average of 8 times each. So again keeping a low profile doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

The word SAMPLE comes into play here, these are not the total arrested out of 2 million, only a "sample".
It doesn't really matter how many arrests there were. You were making the point that illegal aliens wouldn't be concerned with voting illegally because illegal aliens seem to have a penchant for getting arrested. You then provided the study as evidence.

I countered by saying that your argument, in another context, would be tantamount to me saying "criminals don't seem to keep a low profile because I found a bunch of criminals in jail who got themselves arrested." It doesn't make sense.

I wasn't quibbling with the report, I was quibbling with your use of it to prove a point that is, in and of itself, false.
2007-07-25 15:07:15
topal63
. . .
+533|7023

lowing wrote:

san4 wrote:

Skruples wrote:

you're presenting that report in a misleading fashion. All 55,322 of the illegal aliens in the sample were already in the prison system, meaning they would have had to have been arrested at least once no matter what. Arguing that all illegal aliens, or even a significant amount of them, are not afraid of the government because the ones in prison have been arrested is a specious argument, at best.

Also, the report states that a fair amount of them were arrested on immigration charges, which is kind of the point. Illegal aliens who don't want to be deported or sent to jail are likely to stay away from the government, because the government can arrest or deport them.
And, for what it's worth, keep in mind that, according to that article, there are up to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. The number of people in that study, 55,322, is less than 1/3 of 1% of that.
To both of you:

These 55000 were arested an average of 8 times each. So again keeping a low profile doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

The word SAMPLE comes into play here, these are not the total arrested out of 2 million, only a "sample".
Why are you grasping at straws (your own argument doesn't need to be made into a straw-man - it already is). The premise is false and based upon a fabrication anyway.

There is no such thing as statistically widespread individual voter fraud. This attempt to attach - this voter ID - rider to a student loan bill focuses on restrictions placed upon the individual - it does not address the real fraud issues. The times voter-fraud does happen is criminal (concerted in effort; and organized); that is a systemic problem - not anything that would be solved with a citizen imposed (individual) restriction.

a.) There is zero proof of widespread individual voter fraud.

b.) There is sero proof of mass numbers of illegal aliens registering to vote.

c.) Also only 42 out of 49 Republicans voted for it. Why didn't they all support it?

d.) Also, how do you know this isn't just evidence of more political bickering and congressional dysfunction.  I mean isn't it conceivable that the Repubs. knowing that the Dem.s already stated the date 2010-2012, as an effective date for making the changes (imposing the ID restriction)... so the Repub.s said NO(!) to that date being in the amendment, knowing that the Dems. would said F' it then. Amendment goes down - and the bill gets tabled until a future date. If they had worked together and the Repub.s agreed to the effective date (the 2010-2012 date various studies offered, so that existing citizens: women, elderly, the poor, etc - would not be disenfranchised) then they could have passed the bill, and grandfathered current voters in (those who might not have been able to comply in a quick enough manner, for the primaries and general election of 2008).

And, how do you know that it isn't just political BS - presented in a form the Dem.s would certainly shoot down (as they did unanimously, with a few Republican votes thrown in); so the Republicans could wag their finger at the Dem.s? In my opinion it is proof of increasing congressional dysfunction by both parties.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-25 15:12:49)

2007-07-25 15:10:24
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

Lowing...look at the user political leaning thread.  This forum is full of lefties.  Mention the word liberal or Democrat in any negative way and they get angry.....but the other way around is ok apparently.  Why?  Because it is full of lefties.

Just take random pop shots at them, it is more entertaining and much less of a headache.
2007-07-25 15:16:00
san4
The Mas
+311|6993|NYC, a place to live

lowing wrote:

san4 wrote:

Skruples wrote:

you're presenting that report in a misleading fashion. All 55,322 of the illegal aliens in the sample were already in the prison system, meaning they would have had to have been arrested at least once no matter what. Arguing that all illegal aliens, or even a significant amount of them, are not afraid of the government because the ones in prison have been arrested is a specious argument, at best.

Also, the report states that a fair amount of them were arrested on immigration charges, which is kind of the point. Illegal aliens who don't want to be deported or sent to jail are likely to stay away from the government, because the government can arrest or deport them.
And, for what it's worth, keep in mind that, according to that article, there are up to 20 million illegal aliens in the US. The number of people in that study, 55,322, is less than 1/3 of 1% of that.
To both of you:

These 55000 were arested an average of 8 times each. So again keeping a low profile doesn't seem to be their strong suit.

The word SAMPLE comes into play here, these are not the total arrested out of 2 million, only a "sample".
Ok, so at least .27% of illegal aliens in the US don't keep a low profile. The fact that the sample only consisted of people in prison means it doesn't say much about the other 99.73%.
2007-07-25 15:16:47
topal63
. . .
+533|7023

usmarine2005 wrote:

Lowing...look at the user political leaning thread.  This forum is full of lefties.  Mention the word liberal or Democrat in any negative way and they get angry.....but the other way around is ok apparently.  Why?  Because it is full of lefties.

Just take random pop shots at them, it is more entertaining and much less of a headache.
I was going to say an opinion like that is a "wall of conservative text" - but it really isn't quite lofty enough to be called that - now is it.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-25 15:19:11)

2007-07-25 15:18:16
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Lowing...look at the user political leaning thread.  This forum is full of lefties.  Mention the word liberal or Democrat in any negative way and they get angry.....but the other way around is ok apparently.  Why?  Because it is full of lefties.

Just take random pop shots at them, it is more entertaining and much less of a headache.
I was going to say an opinion like that is a "wall of conservative text" - but it really isn't quite lofty enough for that - now is it.
This is enemy territory man...stay concealed and make small random attacks.

Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-07-25 15:18:38)

2007-07-25 15:21:27
topal63
. . .
+533|7023

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Lowing...look at the user political leaning thread.  This forum is full of lefties.  Mention the word liberal or Democrat in any negative way and they get angry.....but the other way around is ok apparently.  Why?  Because it is full of lefties.

Just take random pop shots at them, it is more entertaining and much less of a headache.
I was going to say an opinion like that is a "wall of conservative text" - but it really isn't quite lofty enough for that - now is it.
This is enemy territory man...stay concealed and make small random attacks.
Really, you think(?) Some other guy (some newcomer - I think - in a Global Warming thread), was saying how he thought this site-forum was uber-conservative.

This one: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=81994

kingofkolt wrote:

Since I've started visiting BF2S.com, I've noticed that this site's forums has one of the most conservative populations of any online community I've ever visited.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-25 15:23:54)

2007-07-25 15:22:13
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7067

topal63 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

topal63 wrote:


I was going to say an opinion like that is a "wall of conservative text" - but it really isn't quite lofty enough for that - now is it.
This is enemy territory man...stay concealed and make small random attacks.
Really, you think(?) Some other guy (some newcomer - I think - in a Global Warming thread), was saying how he thought this site-forum was uber-conservative.
Then people lied on that plot in the sticky.
2007-07-25 15:22:53
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6926|London, England
Liberals

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard