1 posted on
01/31/2012 5:21:57 AM PST by
iowamark
2 posted on
01/31/2012 5:23:46 AM PST by
iowamark
To: iowamark
But he (SoS, Matt Schultz) did so with a twist. .... Unique to his proposal is the idea that one voter can vouch for another in place of photo identification, something Schultz hopes will blunt criticism of his plan.
Oh, well okay then. That is. If lying when doing said "vouching" carries the Penalty Of Death for the both of them.
This seems 'fair'. No?
3 posted on
01/31/2012 5:35:01 AM PST by
Condor51
(Yo Hoffa, so you want to 'take out conservatives'. Well okay Jr - I'm your Huckleberry)
To: iowamark
Proponents of voter photo ID laws say they cut down on fraud and make elections more secure. Opponents say they unfairly target minorities, the poor and the elderly, all classes of people who are less likely to have a photo ID. The statement that voter ID unfairly targets minorities, the poor and the elderly, and all classes of people who are less likely to have a photo ID, is rubbish. Having voter ID available to ALL would be easily accomplished by means of volunteer work, volunteer contributions that would assure that all have ID at cost or not cost.
The Democrats have a hollow argument, that is, there is no substance to such a ridiculous claim! Are they protecting their fraud options? Are there classes of people who do NOT want photo ID? I do not know.
6 posted on
01/31/2012 5:58:48 AM PST by
olezip
To: iowamark
Election fraud is a civil right of Eric Holder's people.
7 posted on
01/31/2012 6:14:09 AM PST by
Joe the Pimpernel
(Too many lawmakers, too many laws, too many lawyers.)
To: iowamark
Election fraud is a civil right of Eric Holder's people.
8 posted on
01/31/2012 6:14:25 AM PST by
Joe the Pimpernel
(Too many lawmakers, too many laws, too many lawyers.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson