Yippy, its started !!!

[hamilton]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html

[John S]

On 10/6/2012 11:43 AM, hamilton wrote:
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html
>

I'm good with it.

[miso]

I'd let the smoker pay for a rider on the policy rather than a ban.
Still, all these freakin' cigarette breaks are a waste of time on the job.

[lang...@fonz.dk]

On 7 Okt., 02:31, miso <m...@sushi.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 12:19 PM, John S wrote:
>
> > On 10/6/2012 11:43 AM, hamilton wrote:

> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_...

>
> > I'm good with it.
>
> I'd let the smoker pay for a rider on the policy rather than a ban.
> Still, all these freakin' cigarette breaks are a waste of time on the job.

I see the purpose, but what is next? too fat, too thin, unhealthy
eating, above the recommended max alcohol consumption,not enough
exercise, too much exercise, dangerous hobbys,
family with heart problems etc.

-Lasse

[Les Cargill]

miso wrote:
> On 10/6/2012 12:19 PM, John S wrote:
>> On 10/6/2012 11:43 AM, hamilton wrote:
>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm good with it.
>
> I'd let the smoker pay for a rider on the policy rather than a ban.

Smokes don't *usually* kill people until they're well past
working age. there are a lot of unfortunate cases where this isn't
true. But aren't smokers like paying three-four bucks a pack in extra
taxes anyway? That should about cover it...

> Still, all these freakin' cigarette breaks are a waste of time on the job.
>

Probably not. You should be taking breaks anyway.

--
Les Cargill

[hamilton]

You must be a smoker.

Smokers are the only ones that bring up that argument.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Oct 6, 9:31 pm, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

You must be a Liberal idiot; you completely failed to meet the
argument.

Do you drink alcohol or sodas, do you eat fatty foods, etc.? Those
are "extra" risky activities that could easily bar *you* from a job.

Oh, wait; do you *have* a job?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 7, 4:54 am, Les Cargill <lcargil...@comcast.com> wrote:
> miso wrote:
> > On 10/6/2012 12:19 PM, John S wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2012 11:43 AM, hamilton wrote:

> >>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_...

>
> >> I'm good with it.
>
> > I'd let the smoker pay for a rider on the policy rather than a ban.
>
> Smokes don't *usually* kill people until they're well past
> working age. there are a lot of unfortunate cases where this isn't
> true. But aren't smokers like paying three-four bucks a pack in extra
> taxes anyway? That should about cover it...
>
> > Still, all these freakin' cigarette breaks are a waste of time on the job.
>
> Probably not. You should be taking breaks anyway.

Many years ago, the UK Guardian newspaper published an article that
purported to demonstrate that smokers saved the UK government money,
because they died shortly after they retired, thus collecting
relatively little from the old age pension system, and they died of
diseases that weren't expensive to treat, reducing the expenditure of
the UK National Health system. They also paid a lot of tax on the
cigarettes they bought.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

Quite a few people can drink alcohol in moderation, eat fatty foods
and drink soda without putting on weight or otherwise damaging their
health - getting enough exercise helps.

Smoking is more dangerous, and - because smokers stink of tobacco -
rather easier to detect.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[hamilton]

Yes, No, Yes, Yes

Most face-to-face interviews use weight as a indicator for fitness for
the job. Weight discrimination could be as common as racial bias.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Weight+Discrimination

And I take it your a smoker also.

[amdx]

On 10/6/2012 11:43 AM, hamilton wrote:

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html
>

Next, "those people" that eat at McDonalds.
But what we really need are genetic tests to find
out who will cost more and get them out of the work force first.
Then scan all medical records and if you have high blood pressure,
high cholesterol, diabetes or any heart condition. Don't hire them!
How about droopy eyelids? Hairy Ears?
Or is this going to far? Maybe!

Now if you would start with those that can't support themselves in
America, I might get on board.

I don't know about others but I'm growing weary of of all this political
stuff.

Maybe an election can rejuvenate me!

Remember, Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday.

And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.


Mikek

[hamilton]

On 10/7/2012 12:55 PM, amdx wrote:
>
> And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
> get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
>
>
> Mikek

Where in the constitution does it say you need an ID to vote ?

[John S]

Is it not stated that you must be a citizen of the US to vote? If so,
how do you tell if a person is a citizen? If not, then anyone in the
world can vote in our elections.

[hamilton]

On 10/7/2012 1:33 PM, John S wrote:
>
> Is it not stated that you must be a citizen of the US to vote? If so,
> how do you tell if a person is a citizen? If not, then anyone in the
> world can vote in our elections.

OK, how much of a problem is voter fraud ?

The county will send you a letter that says you can vote in their precinct.

So you need to get the county to send you a letter AND you need to prove
to a volunteer at the polling station again ?

Or

You just want to dis-enfranchise enough voters to get your side to win ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

What side would that be ?

[Michael A. Terrell]

amdx wrote:
>
> Remember, Republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats on Wednesday.

OWS can vote when they finally get jobs, and Libertarians when their
drugs wear off.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Where does it say you don't?

[Jim Thompson]

It says, in the Constitution, that the STATES determine the
requirements for voters, NOT the Feds. But the DICTATOR has chosen to
ignore whatever laws he wishes, and Congress has not the balls to do
anything about it.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[amdx]

On 10/7/2012 2:02 PM, hamilton wrote:

Many states are trying to require you to prove who you before voting.
I've noticed the democrats don't like the idea, apparently the democrats
think people most likely to vote liberal, don't have it together enough
to get an ID. Most 12 year olds could figure out how to get an ID. It is
so sad how liberals think about liberals.

Mikek

[Charles]

Quite a few people can drink alcohol in moderation, eat fatty foods
and drink soda without putting on weight or otherwise damaging their
health - getting enough exercise helps.

Smoking is more dangerous, and - because smokers stink of tobacco -
rather easier to detect.

And their stench wafts over and reduces the pleasure of life for others. I
once smoked and now realize how I was pissing others off.

We have restaurants (in Naples FL) that allow outdoor smoking. We cannot
enjoy dining outside at those locations.

Smoke stinks! Some cigars should be classified as crowd-control fodder, by
the way.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

>Smokers are the only ones that bring up that argument.

Only an idiot leftist would believe that. But, of course, you *are* an idiot
lefty.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

^
C

Where in the Constitution does if give anyone the right to vote for President?
Idiot.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:45:28 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 10/7/2012 1:33 PM, John S wrote:
>>
>> Is it not stated that you must be a citizen of the US to vote? If so,
>> how do you tell if a person is a citizen? If not, then anyone in the
>> world can vote in our elections.
>
>OK, how much of a problem is voter fraud ?

Huge. Well I suppose it's not a problem for lefties. You're the perps.

>The county will send you a letter that says you can vote in their precinct.

Huh? You're brain-dead.

>So you need to get the county to send you a letter AND you need to prove
>to a volunteer at the polling station again ?

What? YOu show up with your DL, or other state-issued ID.

>Or
>
>You just want to dis-enfranchise enough voters to get your side to win ?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY
>
>What side would that be ?

We all know you're on the side of the idiot lefties.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 12:55:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:48:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
><mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/7/2012 12:55 PM, amdx wrote:
>>> >
>>> > And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
>>> > get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Mikek
>>>
>>> Where in the constitution does it say you need an ID to vote ?
>>
>>
>> Where does it say you don't?
>
>It says, in the Constitution, that the STATES determine the
>requirements for voters, NOT the Feds. But the DICTATOR has chosen to
>ignore whatever laws he wishes, and Congress has not the balls to do
>anything about it.

There is nothing at all in the Constitution about the people voting for
President. The issue of whether or not you *could* vote for the President was
*completely* left up to the states.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Democrats like dead people voting. They are all brain-dead. Democrats always
believe their constituents are useless and they mostly are.

[hamilton]

^
t
> Idiot.
>

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Lower case 'C' in Constitution is not a typo.

>> Idiot.

At least you didn't argue either point; you couldn't. You *are* an (now
admitted) idiot.

[TheGlimmerMan]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:55:19 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:

>And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
>get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
>

I haven't had an ID in 20 years and I work for a gov/mil contractor (I
do have one, it is over 20 years old and does not expire).

IF I had one, I would not present it as a proof of the right to vote.
My name on the rolls is enough.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 20:09:50 -0700, TheGlimmerMan
<justag...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:55:19 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
>>And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
>>get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
>>
>
> I haven't had an ID in 20 years and I work for a gov/mil contractor (I
>do have one, it is over 20 years old and does not expire).

No DL? I guess you don't need one, living in mommy's basement.

> IF I had one, I would not present it as a proof of the right to vote.
>My name on the rolls is enough.

You wouldn't vote here, AlwaysWrong[*]. Government issued ID required. I like
the idea but it'll never happen in the People's Republic of Kalifornika.

[*]In you case, it would be a good thing.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:48:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"

> ?mike.t...@earthlink.net? wrote:
>
> ?
> ?hamilton wrote:
> ??
> ?? On 10/7/2012 12:55 PM, amdx wrote:
> ?? ?
> ?? ? And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
> ?? ? get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
> ?? ?
> ?? ?
> ?? ? Mikek
> ??
> ?? Where in the constitution does it say you need an ID to vote ?
> ?
> ?

> ? Where does it say you don't?
>
> It says, in the Constitution, that the STATES determine the
> requirements for voters, NOT the Feds. But the DICTATOR has chosen to
> ignore whatever laws he wishes, and Congress has not the balls to do
> anything about it.

Since you vote for the Electors, who vote for president.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

The Constitution says nothing about your right to vote for electors, either.
The *states* decide how their electors are chosen.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 8, 9:34 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

Actually, the Constitution does comment on your right to vote in a
presidential election--you don't have one. Your legislators have that
right.

"Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives [of that State]..." U.S. Constitution,
Article II, section 1.

A couple months ago, as a volunteer, I went and verified the status of
some 100 voters registered to vote at a particular location. That was
my only assignment. 98 of the 100 were definitely improper (deceased,
or didn't live there).

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[hamilton]

On 10/8/2012 8:23 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> A couple months ago, as a volunteer, I went and verified the status of
> some 100 voters registered to vote at a particular location. That was
> my only assignment. 98 of the 100 were definitely improper (deceased,
> or didn't live there).

And these were picked at random ?

Or was it your goal to get bragging rights ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY


Why not pass legislation after this election so everyone has 4 years to
get their IDs in order.

Or maybe 4 years ago, after the last election, pass legislation and have
4 years to fight it out.

Why wait till 30 days before the current election ......

>
> --
> Cheers,
> James Arthur
>

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 8, 4:32 pm, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2012 8:23 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > A couple months ago, as a volunteer, I went and verified the status of
> > some 100 voters registered to vote at a particular location.  That was
> > my only assignment.  98 of the 100 were definitely improper (deceased,
> > or didn't live there).
>
> And these were picked at random ?
>
> Or was it your goal to get bragging rights?

Probably neither - James Arthur is a Republican groupie, and reliably
sees the world in way that makes the Republican party look good.

I imagine that it worked something like this - he knows that the
temperature of a living human body is 37C and when he scanned his 100
targets with an infra-red camera, 98 of them showed up as 36.8C or
lower, so he wrote them off as dead.

Quite what data he actually collected, and exactly how he
misinterpreted it to get the conclusion he wanted has yet to be
revealed, but it's going to be something like that.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Michael A. Terrell]

Sigh. What a maroon.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

The Constitution doesn't say that the (state) legislature can't defer, to the
people, their right. It then says nothing on the people's right to vote.

>A couple months ago, as a volunteer, I went and verified the status of
>some 100 voters registered to vote at a particular location. That was
>my only assignment. 98 of the 100 were definitely improper (deceased,
>or didn't live there).

Doesn't surprise me a bit. There is no real process for removing people from
the roles. Who was it recently (a Democratic representative) who had voted in
two states in the last election? There is no good reason to *not* demand ID
to vote. ID is required for damned near everything else in this society.

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 8, 10:32 am, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2012 8:23 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > A couple months ago, as a volunteer, I went and verified the status of
> > some 100 voters registered to vote at a particular location.  That was
> > my only assignment.  98 of the 100 were definitely improper (deceased,
> > or didn't live there).
>
> And these were picked at random ?

The site was chosen by dint of being not nearly large enough to house
that many people. I neither knew nor wanted to know anything else.

> Or was it your goal to get bragging rights ?

Bragging rights? How on earth does one imagine that? It was a
nuisance--I did it as a civic duty, to assist the election commission
in ensuring the integrity of voter registrations. They only have a
few people, and basically have no ability to check.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY

That's a fictional show. It's make-believe.

> Why not pass legislation after this election so everyone has 4 years to
> get their IDs in order.
>
> Or maybe 4 years ago, after the last election, pass legislation and have
> 4 years to fight it out.
>
> Why wait till 30 days before the current election ......

I said months ago. Time to take off the tin-foil hat. Everyone gets
notified, with plenty of time and opportunity to respond.

At least 98 of the 100 were not legally qualified to vote as
registered. They can easily register in other locations too, and vote
absentee. And, there's no mechanism to detect if they do.

So, whether or not there's any mischief we mostly wouldn't know, but
there's ample opportunity. Why does this not concern you?

James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 8, 11:01 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> hamilton wrote:

Most of these conspiracy-types simply don't understand our government,
how it's supposed to work, and why it's supposed to work that way.
Like Ham, not knowing who gets to vote, etc.

The original idea was that the People voted for wiser men in their
legislatures, who would be better informed and better situated to
chose even wiser electors, who in turn would, by voting, choose the
president.

It was a built-in set of selections and primaries, all-in-one--with
each stage of selection producing a higher level of refinement and
concentration of knowledge and expertise--to ultimately select the
best of the best.

Now we just elect the guy with the best hair, or who gives out the
most cell phones.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 8, 12:36 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

Right. The Legislatures have the right. They can delegate it to the
people if they want, but they don't have to.

> >A couple months ago, as a volunteer, I went and verified the status of
> >some 100 voters registered to vote at a particular location.  That was
> >my only assignment.  98 of the 100 were definitely improper (deceased,
> >or didn't live there).
>
> Doesn't surprise me a bit.  There is no real process for removing people from
> the roles.  Who was it recently (a Democratic representative) who had voted in
> two states in the last election?  There is no good reason to *not* demand ID
> to vote.  ID is required for damned near everything else in this society.

The only reasonable conclusion is that certain people want people to
vote illegally.

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to
prove they are insured... But not everyone must prove they are a
citizen." Now add this, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable, to
prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those
who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

Note that the bar isn't even that high--the attempt was only to verify
that people even lived in the districts where they were registered to
vote, not prove citizenship, or anything else.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Because fraud gave us leftists like Al Franken and might even deliver Obama
this time.

[hamilton]

On 10/8/2012 11:20 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
> Because fraud gave us leftists like Al Franken and might even deliver Obama
> this time.
>

So this is the real reason to dis-enfranchise as many Obama voters now,
before they have a chance to vote.

Your right wing nut case will not win with out tweaking the voting public.

Now I get it.

[hamilton]

On 10/8/2012 10:37 AM, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY
>
> That's a fictional show. It's make-believe.
>

For a fictional show (based on actual events), this is the truest news
story you have ever seen.

[Michael A. Terrell]

No. you don't. You never will.

[hamilton]

Please Sir, explain it to me.

I am not able to understand.

[Michael A. Terrell]

You never will. If they can get out of the house at all, they can
get legal ID. If they are homebound, they can still get it, with help.
You bitch about a fictitious 30 days, but this was started several years
ago. I had to have my birth certificate & SS card, along with proof of
residence to renew my driver's license, and that was more than 30 days
ago. Why even bother with elections, if you're just going to let fraud
run rampant?

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

On Oct 8, 1:30 pm, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

> On 10/8/2012 10:37 AM, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGAvwSp86hY
>
> > That's a fictional show.  It's make-believe.
>
> For a fictional show (based on actual events), this is the truest news
> story you have ever seen.

I don't get it. I give a first-hand account based on actual
experience, demonstrating a clear problem--improperly registered
people who could easily have registered and voted multiple times in
multiple districts without detection, or at least vote for politicians
in districts where they do not live--and you, utterly unaffected,
rebut with a make-believe show on another topic, voter ID.

I really don't get it.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 8, 7:20 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

As opposed to the kind of fraud that actually happens and gave you
Dubbya in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

Perhaps because he's more concerned about the other side of the coin -
as exhibited in Florida in 2000 - where Republican-dominated election
commissions selectively purge the electoral rolls of people who are
likely to vote Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

--
Bill Sloman

[Bill Sloman]

That was the story the founding tax-evaders used to sell the system.
In actual fact they just made it messy and indirect enough so that the
well-off could manoeuvre their preferred candidates into the positions
of power

> It was a built-in set of selections and primaries, all-in-one--with
> each stage of selection producing a higher level of refinement and
> concentration of knowledge and expertise--to ultimately select the
> best of the best.

Actually, to give the well-off repeated opportunities to insert their
favourite candidates and squeezed out the less compliant.

> Now we just elect the guy with the best hair, or who gives out the
> most cell phones.

Actually, you mostly elect the guy who can buy most television
advertising - the television advertising may not be decisive, but if
you've got enough money to buy lots of advertising you've got enough
money to buy other advantages as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

It's simple. He doesn't believe Republican fairy stories, and you
swallow every last one, hook, line and sinker. You've got a serious
case of selective gullibility.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 8, 12:33 am, amdx <a...@knology.net> wrote:

> On 10/7/2012 2:02 PM, hamilton wrote:
>
> > On 10/7/2012 12:55 PM, amdx wrote:
>
> >> And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to

> >> get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
>

> > Where in the constitution does it say you need an ID to vote ?
>

>    Many states are trying to require you to prove who you before voting.
> I've noticed the democrats don't like the idea, apparently the democrats
> think people most likely to vote liberal, don't have it together enough
> to get an ID. Most 12 year olds could figure out how to get an ID. It is
> so sad how liberals think about liberals.

In fact it is more about how the Democrats think about the
Republicans. You don't have to have a long memory to remember how Jeb
Bush stole Florida's electoral college vote for his brother in 2000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

When the Republicans start trying to stop people voting in the next
election it doesn't take a particularly suspicious mind to put two and
two together.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:28:42 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 10/8/2012 11:20 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> Because fraud gave us leftists like Al Franken and might even deliver Obama
>> this time.
>>
>
>So this is the real reason to dis-enfranchise as many Obama voters now,
>before they have a chance to vote.

Eliminating fraud, yes, it's not only the law but it's a good idea.

>Your right wing nut case will not win with out tweaking the voting public.

Your left wing will be slaves to masters of their own making. You already
are.

>Now I get it.
>
No, you're too stupid to "get it". All lefties are.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
to renew my driver's license. My wife had to have all that *plus* our
original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).


Of course lefties want fraud to run rampant. It's the only way they can win.
The ends justify the means is their MO.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:27:18 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
wrote:

Slowman, you don't have to prove you're an idiot. We got it years ago.

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 9, 1:12 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 11:28:42 -0600, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
> >On 10/8/2012 11:20 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
> >> Because fraud gave us leftists like Al Franken and might even deliver Obama
> >> this time.
>
> >So this is the real reason to dis-enfranchise as many Obama voters now,
> >before they have a chance to vote.
>
> Eliminating fraud, yes, it's not only the law but it's a good idea.
>
> >Your right wing nut case will not win with out tweaking the voting public.
>
> Your left wing will be slaves to masters of their own making.  You already
> are.

Bizarre image. Followers might be seen as slaves to leaders of their
own making - but if you can make a leader, you can also unmake him (or
her). It is more common on the right wing. Thatcher was famously slung
out by her own party when she got so crazy that even the other
conservatives noticed.

> >Now I get it.
>
> No, you're too stupid to "get it".  All lefties are.

krw calling other people stupid does have its funny side. He must the
the dumbest of the regular posters. Even AlwaysWrong produces
occasional flashes of wit, but krw is just plain dull.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 9, 1:16 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz>
wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 15:27:18 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org>

krw claims that "he gets it" but it's just wishful thinking, He hasn't
got the wit to catch a cold.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Michael A. Terrell]

It's all in his email address. His mind is 'nothere'.

[Michael A. Terrell]

"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>
> I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
> to renew my driver's license. My wife had to have all that *plus* our
> original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).

A woman I know had to track down her previous marriage license, from
a husband that had died, in addition to the current one and the other
documents.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Right. They have to document name changes. She's had/used her current name
over twice as long as the one she was born with but had to document it because
it didn't match the birth certificate.

[amdx]

On 10/7/2012 10:09 PM, TheGlimmerMan wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Oct 2012 13:55:19 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net> wrote:
>
>> And something to think about, if you don't have it together enough to
>> get an ID, maybe you shouldn't vote.
>>
>

> I haven't had an ID in 20 years and I work for a gov/mil contractor (I
> do have one, it is over 20 years old and does not expire).
>
> IF I had one, I would not present it as a proof of the right to vote.
> My name on the rolls is enough.
>

Can I come in early and say I'm you, then vote?
Mikek

[Michael A. Terrell]

What makes you think dimmie's eligble to vote?

[Jim Thompson]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:30:52 -0500, amdx <am...@knologynotthis.net>
wrote:

Once upon a time you voted in your neighborhood, where everyone knew
everyone in the neighborhood. Before mail-in ballots I'd walk into
the (usually a) church and the little old lady at the sign-in desk
would immediately announce, in a loud voice, "Thompson, James Elbert",
page..., line..., and the other "certifiers" would thumb thru and find
me and check me off. Then I'd sign the main list, be handed a ballot,
and pick an empty booth.

Now there are often more votes cast in some Chicago districts than the
TOTAL adult population :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

[tm]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YJydnWi92aqfrunN...@earthlink.com...

Don't you need to be 18 to vote?

[Michael A. Terrell]

Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> Once upon a time you voted in your neighborhood, where everyone knew
> everyone in the neighborhood. Before mail-in ballots I'd walk into
> the (usually a) church and the little old lady at the sign-in desk
> would immediately announce, in a loud voice, "Thompson, James Elbert",
> page..., line..., and the other "certifiers" would thumb thru and find
> me and check me off. Then I'd sign the main list, be handed a ballot,
> and pick an empty booth.
>
> Now there are often more votes cast in some Chicago districts than the
> TOTAL adult population :-(

The total for the last 50 years.


My poling place is a Sheriff's substation. I'm surprised the lefties
don't complain that some of them might be arrested, when they show up to
vote.

[Michael A. Terrell]

Is his IQ that high? ;-)

[hamilton]

On 10/8/2012 8:30 PM, amdx wrote:

> Can I come in early and say I'm you, then vote?
> Mikek

Sure, If you stole the county letter that gives me the precinct I am to
vote in.

So now theft is the only way Romney will win ??

Just like Dubbya, sounds like the only way Republicans can win is if
they steal the election.

Will this year be the same ?

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 10:50:25 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 10/8/2012 8:30 PM, amdx wrote:
>
>> Can I come in early and say I'm you, then vote?
>> Mikek
>
>Sure, If you stole the county letter that gives me the precinct I am to
>vote in.

Where are you that you need a note from mommy to vote? In every other place
I've lived, that letter is simply a verification of address (it's not
forwardable). *ID* is needed to vote.

>So now theft is the only way Romney will win ??

Romney is a Democrat?

>Just like Dubbya, sounds like the only way Republicans can win is if
>they steal the election.

Idiot.

>Will this year be the same ?

No, Obama is going down.

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

hamilton wrote:

>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html

Solves the contractor vs statutory employee issue.

I can't hire smokers, since my insurance won't cover them. So they must be
contractors*.

*Wouldn't sign an onerous 'lifestyle complance' agreement.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror, like his passengers.

[hamilton]

On 10/9/2012 12:05 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> Where are you that you need a note from mommy to vote? In every other place
> I've lived, that letter is simply a verification of address (it's not
> forwardable). *ID* is needed to vote.

So you are saying that the county knows who you are by your address.

You are also saying that the county can verify you by your address and
gives you a letter that can allow you to vote.

So, who needs to have a government ID if the county has already done
that work ?

[Michael A. Terrell]

You're too stupid to be able to vote.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 13:14:45 -0600, hamilton <hami...@nothere.com> wrote:

>On 10/9/2012 12:05 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> Where are you that you need a note from mommy to vote? In every other place
>> I've lived, that letter is simply a verification of address (it's not
>> forwardable). *ID* is needed to vote.
>
>So you are saying that the county knows who you are by your address.

You really are stupid, aren't you? They already know your address is valid
because they didn't get the post card returned (it is *not* forwardable). They
know *who* you are, if they care [*], by your government-issued picture ID
(which also has your address on it).

>You are also saying that the county can verify you by your address and
>gives you a letter that can allow you to vote.

Good, Lord. I though DimBulb was dim.

>So, who needs to have a government ID if the county has already done
>that work ?

Idiot. Anyone can show up and claim to be you, just as whats-his-name did
with Eric Holder a couple of years back (but didn't vote illegally - he's not
a Democrat).


Unbelievable.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

Unfortunately, he's not. 47% of the population isn't any smarter.

[Charles]

Actually, you mostly elect the guy who can buy most television
advertising - the television advertising may not be decisive, but if
you've got enough money to buy lots of advertising you've got enough
money to buy other advantages as well.

You are correct and they won't be electable unless they are:
1/ connected (take that as wealthy or a derivative)
2/ tall and good-looking
3/ glib (take that as lying with a straight face)
4/ become media darlings (this is the scariest part for some of us)

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[amdx]

On 10/9/2012 11:50 AM, hamilton wrote:
> On 10/8/2012 8:30 PM, amdx wrote:
>
>> Can I come in early and say I'm you, then vote?
>> Mikek
>
> Sure, If you stole the county letter that gives me the precinct I am to
> vote in.

Your neighbor on the South side told me where they vote don't you vote
at the same place?
Mikek

>
> So now theft is the only way Romney will win ??
>
> Just like Dubbya, sounds like the only way Republicans can win is if
> they steal the election.
>
> Will this year be the same ?
>

It is starting to look close!
That's why the conservatives are trying to prevent voter fraud.
We don't want dead or repeat voters to steal the election.
Mikek

[amdx]

On 10/9/2012 1:43 PM, Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
> hamilton wrote:
>
>>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html
>
> Solves the contractor vs statutory employee issue.
>

I worked over 10 years as a "contractor"
in the owners electronic repair shop. using
his parts, his paperwork, his secretary,
his workspace, etc.
Not sure an audit would have called me a contractor,
but I'd do it again. I made good money in the middle 80's
when Reagan was president. :-)
Mikek

[rickman]

On 10/7/2012 6:55 PM, Charles wrote:
>
> Quite a few people can drink alcohol in moderation, eat fatty foods
> and drink soda without putting on weight or otherwise damaging their
> health - getting enough exercise helps.
>
> Smoking is more dangerous, and - because smokers stink of tobacco -
> rather easier to detect.
>
> And their stench wafts over and reduces the pleasure of life for others.
> I once smoked and now realize how I was pissing others off.
>
> We have restaurants (in Naples FL) that allow outdoor smoking. We cannot
> enjoy dining outside at those locations.
>
> Smoke stinks! Some cigars should be classified as crowd-control fodder,
> by the way.

Earlier I was in a Mediterranean restaurant that had a Hooka bar. Every
time the waitress came in from the kitchen she left the door open and
the smoke came in, not in waves, but enough that it was annoying. She
really didn't get it.

BTW, smoking is banned in all restaurants here. I wonder how they can
have a hooka bar in the same establishment?

Rick

[rickman]

On 10/7/2012 12:12 PM, hamilton wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 1:30 AM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>> Do you drink alcohol or sodas, do you eat fatty foods, etc.? Those
>> are "extra" risky activities that could easily bar *you* from a job.
>>
>> Oh, wait; do you *have* a job?
>>
>>
>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>
> Yes, No, Yes, Yes
>
> Most face-to-face interviews use weight as a indicator for fitness for
> the job. Weight discrimination could be as common as racial bias.
>
> https://www.google.com/search?q=Weight+Discrimination
>
> And I take it your a smoker also.

I'm not a smoker and I agree that it is a dangerous road to travel down.
I assume they only did it for two reasons, 1) they can get you to sign
the affidavit and get the discount from the insurance company with no
muss or fuss, 2) because none of the people making the decision smoke.

If you talk about not hiring the obese, then I think few managers would
be willing to open that can of worms regardless of the insurance
savings. They don't want to set a precedent they might not qualify under!!!

Rick

[rickman]

On 10/7/2012 2:55 PM, amdx wrote:
> Now if you would start with those that can't support themselves in
> America, I might get on board.
>
>
> Mikek

Are you talking about the 47%?

Rick

[rickman]

What??!!!

Let's take a look at Dubya...

1/ Connected, well, ok, he *was* connected.

2/ tall and good-looking... no, I don't think so...

3/ glib, no, I don't think anyone would call Dubya glib. Maybe he
didn't have to be since he sincerely believed what he said.

4/ become media darlings... no, I can't say he was ever a "darling" of
anyone except maybe his Mom.

So 1 out of three is enough? Well, maybe if you have the Supreme Court
behind you it is!

Rick

[rickman]

On 10/8/2012 7:15 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
> I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
> to renew my driver's license. My wife had to have all that *plus* our
> original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).
>
>

> Of course lefties want fraud to run rampant. It's the only way they can win.
> The ends justify the means is their MO.

There is some irony here. To get the voter ID card all that is needed
is a rental agreement. This can be a simple statement on a piece of
paper. You show it but they don't confirm anything.

To register a car in that state all that is needed is a voter ID card
(or letter).

To get a driver's license all that is needed is the car registration.

So now with a driver's license you can prove you are eligible to vote!

What!!!??

[Les Cargill]

rickman wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 12:12 PM, hamilton wrote:
>> On 10/7/2012 1:30 AM, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>>> Do you drink alcohol or sodas, do you eat fatty foods, etc.? Those
>>> are "extra" risky activities that could easily bar *you* from a job.
>>>
>>> Oh, wait; do you *have* a job?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark L. Fergerson
>>>
>> Yes, No, Yes, Yes
>>
>> Most face-to-face interviews use weight as a indicator for fitness for
>> the job. Weight discrimination could be as common as racial bias.
>>
>> https://www.google.com/search?q=Weight+Discrimination
>>
>> And I take it your a smoker also.
>
> I'm not a smoker and I agree that it is a dangerous road to travel down.
> I assume they only did it for two reasons, 1) they can get you to sign
> the affidavit and get the discount from the insurance company with no
> muss or fuss, 2) because none of the people making the decision smoke.
>

Smokers are just a Jungian Other that it is now socially
acceptable to discriminate against. That makes me nervous.

> If you talk about not hiring the obese, then I think few managers would
> be willing to open that can of worms regardless of the insurance
> savings. They don't want to set a precedent they might not qualify
> under!!!
>
> Rick

--
Les Cargill

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:58:55 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/8/2012 7:15 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
>> to renew my driver's license. My wife had to have all that *plus* our
>> original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).
>>
>>
>> Of course lefties want fraud to run rampant. It's the only way they can win.
>> The ends justify the means is their MO.
>
>There is some irony here. To get the voter ID card all that is needed
>is a rental agreement. This can be a simple statement on a piece of
>paper. You show it but they don't confirm anything.

With your name on it.

>To register a car in that state all that is needed is a voter ID card
>(or letter).

...and proof of who you are. Insurance?

>To get a driver's license all that is needed is the car registration.

...and proof of who you are.

>So now with a driver's license you can prove you are eligible to vote!

You now have proof of who you are and your address.

>What!!!?

Think about it some more. Maybe you'll become a Republican.

[stratus46]

On Monday, October 8, 2012 3:27:42 PM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> > At least 98 of the 100 were not legally qualified to vote as
>
> > registered.  They can easily register in other locations too, and vote
>
> > absentee.  And, there's no mechanism to detect if they do.
>
> >
>
> > So, whether or not there's any mischief we mostly wouldn't know, but
>
> > there's ample opportunity.  Why does this not concern you?
>
>
>
> Perhaps because he's more concerned about the other side of the coin -
>
> as exhibited in Florida in 2000 - where Republican-dominated election
>
> commissions selectively purge the electoral rolls of people who are
>
> likely to vote Democrat.
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bill Sloman

Here's a real world example of why you're wrong (as usual). My mother in law died last year but before then her legal address was at our house. She got her ballot last week and she can apply to vote absentee. Obviously the county rolls are out of date. Shouldn't this be corrected?

G²

[josephkk]

On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:23:47 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

>
>
>Once upon a time you voted in your neighborhood, where everyone knew
>everyone in the neighborhood. Before mail-in ballots I'd walk into
>the (usually a) church and the little old lady at the sign-in desk
>would immediately announce, in a loud voice, "Thompson, James Elbert",
>page..., line..., and the other "certifiers" would thumb thru and find
>me and check me off. Then I'd sign the main list, be handed a ballot,
>and pick an empty booth.
>
>Now there are often more votes cast in some Chicago districts than the
>TOTAL adult population :-(
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Oh come on Jim, you forgot the graveyard vote. You know, vote early vote
often. It is bound to be much larger than the living population by quite
a bit.

?-)

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 10, 4:44 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

No. If he can think, he won't become a Republican. Intelligent people
do become Republicans, but only if they've got intellectual blind
spots that restrict their capacity to think straight.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

Obviously. But what's that got to do with trawling the electorals
rolls for people whose names might be confused with that of a
convicted felon and purging everybody who might - conceivably - be a
convicted felon and looks likely to vote for the Democrats.

The fact that electoral rolls aren't perfect - they are set up and run
by human beings - is a very poor argument for sitting back and letting
Republican-dominated electoral review commissions make them a whole
lot less perfect by throwing out everybody who looks likely to vote
Democrat if they can find some vaguely plausible reason to question
their registration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Central_Voter_File

gives a depressing picture of their enthusiasm for tolerating "false
positives".

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 10, 1:43 am, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2012 2:55 PM, amdx wrote:
>
> > Now if you would start with those that can't support themselves in
> > America, I might get on board.
>

> Are you talking about the 47%?

About 20% of 47% are going to be too young to vote, and another 20%
are going to be pensioners, who used to be able to support themselves
(and the pensioner population).

Romney was playing a stupid audience. He might be stupid enough to
have believed what he was saying - he is a Republican - but it's more
likely that he knew what he was doing. He's been looking a lot less
like a brain-dead Republican since he got the nomination, so it may be
he chose to be a Republican in order to have a political career rather
than because he was silly enough to believe the rubbish the Tea Party
spout.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[Michael A. Terrell]

stratus46 wrote:
>
> Here's a real world example of why you're wrong (as usual). My mother in law died last year but before then her legal address was at our house. She got her ballot last week and she can apply to vote absentee. Obviously the county rolls are out of date. Shouldn't this be corrected?

Death notices should be sent to the local registrar's office by the
coroner's office, to be removed, and a letter sent to the listed
address, in case of a mistake.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill....@ieee.org>
wrote:

>On Oct 10, 4:44�am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:58:55 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 10/8/2012 7:15 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>> >> I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
>> >> to renew my driver's license. �My wife had to have all that *plus* our
>> >> original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).
>>
>> >> Of course lefties want fraud to run rampant. �It's the only way they can win.
>> >> The ends justify the means is their MO.
>>
>> >There is some irony here. �To get the voter ID card all that is needed
>> >is a rental agreement. �This can be a simple statement on a piece of
>> >paper. �You show it but they don't confirm anything.
>>
>> With your name on it.
>>
>> >To register a car in that state all that is needed is a voter ID card
>> >(or letter).
>>
>> ...and proof of who you are. �Insurance?
>>
>> >To get a driver's license all that is needed is the car registration.
>>
>> ...and proof of who you are.
>>
>> >So now with a driver's license you can prove you are eligible to vote!
>>
>> You now have proof of who you are and your address.
>>
>> >What!!!?
>>
>> Think about it some more. �Maybe you'll become a Republican.
>
>No. If he can think, he won't become a Republican.

Because, like you, he won't think.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 20:18:21 -0700 (PDT), stratus46 <stra...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You could have just returned the post card as undeliverable. That's what's
supposed to happen (but usually doesn't in this situation).

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

Depends. BTW, who's she voting for?

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

[Bill Sloman]

On Oct 10, 3:36 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org>

> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 10, 4:44 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
> ><k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:58:55 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On 10/8/2012 7:15 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

<snip>

> >> Think about it some more.  Maybe you'll become a Republican.
>
> >No. If he can think, he won't become a Republican.
>
> Because, like you, he won't think.

krw makes yet another post in the hope of guaranteeing his position of
group moron. He shouldn't gave gone to the trouble - there's really
nobody else with a hope of taking the prize from him. Maybe he's
hoping for a special prize for the dimmest non sequitur.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

[stratus46]

A copy of her death certificate was sent to Social Security by the mortuary to properly stop the money. If it was sent to the election folks I don't know but when we got one of these last year my wife thought she took care of it but they're backkkkkk.

G²

[stratus46]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:01:57 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:

>
> Cheers,
>
> James Arthur

If she was still alive she'd vote against Obama again.

G²

[hamilton]

> G�
>
Now James is interested !

[rickman]

On 10/9/2012 10:44 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:58:55 -0400, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/8/2012 7:15 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>> I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
>>> to renew my driver's license. My wife had to have all that *plus* our
>>> original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course lefties want fraud to run rampant. It's the only way they can win.
>>> The ends justify the means is their MO.
>>
>> There is some irony here. To get the voter ID card all that is needed
>> is a rental agreement. This can be a simple statement on a piece of
>> paper. You show it but they don't confirm anything.
>
> With your name on it.

Hardly proof of anything, the rental agreement can be written up by
yourself. It has "a" name on it and has "an" address. It also has two
signatures, but who's exactly?

>> To register a car in that state all that is needed is a voter ID card
>> (or letter).
>

> ....and proof of who you are. Insurance?

No proof of insurance is needed to own or register a car. Maybe to
drive it legally, I'm not sure. No other ID is required to get the
registration.

>> To get a driver's license all that is needed is the car registration.
>

> ....and proof of who you are.

What proof? If you have the registration they assume you already proved
who you are and where you live.

>> So now with a driver's license you can prove you are eligible to vote!
>
> You now have proof of who you are and your address.
>
>> What!!!?
>
> Think about it some more. Maybe you'll become a Republican.

You can be as snide as you like, the point is that this happens.
Drivers licenses are still not a very robust ID in spite of the
aftermath of 911 and even in the wake of various scandals following the
alleged "crackdown" in drivers licensing.

Rick

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:14:20 -0400, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/9/2012 10:44 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:58:55 -0400, rickman<gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2012 7:15 PM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had to have my birth certificate, SS card, and two forms of proof of address
>>>> to renew my driver's license. My wife had to have all that *plus* our
>>>> original marriage license (not the one from the minister, either).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course lefties want fraud to run rampant. It's the only way they can win.
>>>> The ends justify the means is their MO.
>>>
>>> There is some irony here. To get the voter ID card all that is needed
>>> is a rental agreement. This can be a simple statement on a piece of
>>> paper. You show it but they don't confirm anything.
>>
>> With your name on it.
>
>Hardly proof of anything, the rental agreement can be written up by
>yourself. It has "a" name on it and has "an" address. It also has two
>signatures, but who's exactly?

It had to be addressed from a company, here. Light bill, phone bill, etc.

>
>>> To register a car in that state all that is needed is a voter ID card
>>> (or letter).
>>
>> ....and proof of who you are. Insurance?
>
>No proof of insurance is needed to own or register a car.

There certainly is here!

>Maybe to
>drive it legally, I'm not sure. No other ID is required to get the
>registration.

You must live in east bumbfuck. Proof of insurance was required to register a
car in every state I've lived in. Sometimes it was a little circuitous
(inspection was in there, too) but proof in insurance was *always* required.
Just went through that again (moved a couple of cars).

>
>>> To get a driver's license all that is needed is the car registration.
>>
>> ....and proof of who you are.
>
>What proof? If you have the registration they assume you already proved
>who you are and where you live.

Birth certificate, two forms of address verification, legal proof of name
change, Social Security card.

>>> So now with a driver's license you can prove you are eligible to vote!
>>
>> You now have proof of who you are and your address.
>>
>>> What!!!?
>>
>> Think about it some more. Maybe you'll become a Republican.
>
>You can be as snide as you like, the point is that this happens.
>Drivers licenses are still not a very robust ID in spite of the
>aftermath of 911 and even in the wake of various scandals following the
>alleged "crackdown" in drivers licensing.

Well, you really are showing how stupid you are. You do need to think about
it some more before spouting your nonsense.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:46:29 -0700 (PDT), stratus46 <stra...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

There is no reason the Social Security Administration (the feds) would send a
copy of the birth certificate to the board of elections (city or county
office). That's not how the government works.

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

So are you, right? Now there's another name you can vote under.

[Michael A. Terrell]

I would have called a TV station's investigative reporter & let them
have a field day, showing how sloppy the system is. :)

[k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

I don't know why anyone would be surprised. There is no mechanism to
rationalize birth/death certificates. Never has been.