Mar 14, 2013 1:52pm

As usual, the Tennessee Senate has done the right thing, approving the ban of library cards as voter id. The liberals want to steal elections, so they want library ids considered as appropriate identification. Luckily republicans aren't stupid and keep the from their ridiculous, corrupt agenda.

Mar 14, 2013 1:54pm

Everyone knows how corrupt libraries are!


I mean... those damn liberals on their high horses only give those things out to people who can read, or at least pretend to be able to read!


Mar 14, 2013 2:39pm

People should have to give a thumbprint, or dna, to establish who they are EACH TIME they vote.

So there's no confusion.

Darn Liberals.


Mar 14, 2013 3:33pm

I think that the Republicans should have to buy me an ID every time I vote.

Maybe if those jackass tight wads had to spend their money instead of my money they'd quit spending my money on their bullshit.


Mar 14, 2013 4:29pm

lol. yes. after all, one must be rich to have ONE valid id during their life time.

Mar 14, 2013 5:28pm

My one valid ID, a US passport, supposedly good everywhere in the known universe, is not accepted everywhere I go like Mastercard.

I've had people actually tell me it's not a state issued ID. I guess there are smashingmorons everywhere.


Mar 14, 2013 7:33pm

In the future they will tattoo a bar code on your palm. When you scan it a picture of you face will appear on the monitor and the cashier will know its you and she won't have to look at any fake ID you may have.


Mar 14, 2013 9:42pm

She won't even have to look at the fake tattoo in my palm either.


Mar 26, 2013 10:25am

It's not just an issue of potential fraud, which I do not believe will occur in any large amount nor do I believe it will actually tilt an election.  It's an issue of citizenship responsibility.  If you are too lazy or stupid to bring forth an ID from the state like a driver's license then I do not favor you being able to vote. Important decisions are made by the state and federal government and it appears more than ever that too many idiots are allowed to vote.  

The Founding Fathers were correct to reduce suffrage to certain individuals that had a stake in the elections, and they were right when they stated that the government would only survive if the voting public were responsible moral individuals.  If you bring a library card and nothing else to the voting booth you are either a fool or you bring contempt upon the electoral process.  




Mar 26, 2013 1:05pm

Don't believe the hype surrounding the 99% literacy rate, the US is definitely a third world country filled with bushmen and witch doctors where only special people should have the right to vote. Those special people should have renounced Satan, not slurp their soup, and can ride in a car without going whee all the way home or whatever regulations that the party in power decides is proper voting criterion this month. 

Oh wait, fuck that! And fuck the contempt for the process of one man = one vote indicated above. He's saying that some people are just not good enough to vote meaning that others who can vote are better. That's the basic gist of the politics of exclusion, the excluders want to be 1st class and relegate others to being 2nd class.


Mar 26, 2013 1:53pm

Soeaking of which... a study just showed that 80% of NY high school graduates are ILLITERATE. Is NY a liberal state or cosnervative one, remind me, again, side-effectgina.

Mar 26, 2013 2:25pm

Side--Effect: Now, you see you basically made the same argument I did but made it sound uncool.  Of course I wish to exclude those too stupid, lazy, and ignorant not only to protect myself from their insanity but the nation as a whole.  As long as the requirements are fair and not an undue burden I have no problem raising the bar only so slightly to discourage the losers from voting. 



Mar 26, 2013 3:05pm

^^ hey! You already started a thread about that.

And btw, how many minorities live in Tennessee??


Mar 26, 2013 6:43pm

Made it sound uncool. Imagine that.

It was a parody of your argument which should draw a conclusion that no one should be a second class citizen as you propose.

By including ignorant in your standard you have excluded yourself from your voting process because you are unaware of the consequences of creating a tiered citizenry. You were just hoping to feel special by setting yourself apart from others who you call stupid, lazy and ignorant, but failed to devise a system that would not exclude you. 

By all means feel free to voluntarily implement your plan.


Mar 26, 2013 6:55pm

Side--Effect: The American dream is to have the potential to be awesome, not that one or even most are awesome.  The American system should given opportunity for people to better themselves so that they can participate in the political process, not that it should give every idiot above 18 an equal voice in the system.  

The system would be easy, pass a citizenship test that foreigners have to pass and you get to vote.  If you fail you don't vote.  The information for it and the questions asked are available everywhere and I am sure every special interest group will spend millions to make sure each and every idiot can pass it.  That would be satisfactory enough for me.  And maybe it will disqualify a bunch of southern hicks that would otherwise vote my ideology, but that is a sacrifice I would be willing to make. Because I know that those same hicks would actually try to pass that test as if their souls depended upon it when it comes to important social issues.  

Since I can pass it easily it wouldn't exclude me.  



Mar 26, 2013 9:22pm

Since I can pass it easily it wouldn't exclude me. 

Sorry. You already defined your test and failed. You don't get to rewrite the test because you failed.

You also don't get to create second class citizens. Fortunately.


Mar 26, 2013 9:38pm

Side--Effect: You trying to imply that because I disagree with current voting laws that I therefore wouldn't be able to pass a test concerning already existing laws?  That's preposterous as any one knows that one needs to always research his enemy's ideals.  A test is merely knowledge, not agreeableness. There are a number of other things upon which I could disagree with such as how US Senators are appointed, but I do know the current process.  

Yes, its too bad I can't demand standards when it comes to electing our officials that are now responsible for trillions of dollars.  But there are still some good attempts like voter ID laws and registration laws that will hopefully reduce the problem.  These laws will be deemed constitutional and they will have its desired effect.  



Mar 26, 2013 11:42pm

No. I'm trying to say exactly what I said: you are ignorant of the consequences of your desires thus you do not qualify to vote using your criterion for eligibility.

Instead of learning from the mistake you made when you set your rules you change your rules to allow yourself in. Mistakes will also be made if your vision comes to fruition. While disenfranchisement is attractive to a party in decline it's not the way to maintain this republic.

Concentrating power is your goal. It is also what's wrong with our current government.


Mar 26, 2013 11:52pm

lol. Sweet. Like most liberals, including burghgina, side's strategy is ignore me once I've owned him with facts. I'll just start linking to where I shut uyou up with facts each time you think you're being funny accusing me of somehting.

Mar 27, 2013 12:05am

Side--EffectMy criteria in the beginning is that one needs to have a state ID or equivalent documentation that they are a citizen of this country to vote, which is not in my opinion an undue burden.  I have a passport, state ID, driver's license, military ID card, and a military TRICARE ID card.  It is ridiculous that an individual not have one of these items.  And if a citizen cannot put forth the energy to get one then I don't want them voting for my elected officials.  

Secondly, my next criteria would be to implement a citizenship test in order to vote.  You haven't stated anything on how that has anything to do with my eligibility.  I told you what my desired requirements are so by my own eligibility standards I obviously meet it.  You're using a strawman argument by misconstruing my eligibility requirement.  The consequences of my policy are irrelevant to the eligibility requirements I have put forth.  Additionally you don't mention what those negative consequences would be. I really don't see how requiring ID cards could cause any harm to the political system other than harming a particular party that feeds off stupid people in urban cities.  

Reducing the voting pool will allow for a more informed citizen population that will not be influenced by special interest campaigns or political television ads or talk radio.  It will actually reduce the influence of these people because their success is persuading low information voters to do as they say instead of thinking for themselves.  The smart voters are being drowned out by the stupid masses that can be persuaded to vote one way or another by a TV ad.  Then those same stupid people are brought to the polls by party buses and told how to vote.  These people don't even know the names of the people they're voting for.  "Which one is the black guy?" comes to mind.  

The powerful stay powerful because they have slaves aka low information voters doing their bidding and cannot be challenged by the more informed voters.  There is an injustice when a man who has large real estate holdings, lots of stock, and lots of cash reserves who is an expert in economics is on the same level as an unemployed high school drop out who has no idea about anything.   It is an injustice when the middle class, upper middle class, and the rich who have the greatest stakes in the game are undermined by a class of stupid people who vote to give themselves benefits.  It will destroy the Republic beginning with California and Illinois along with cities like Detroit.  


Post a comment