• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court Upholds Arizona's Voter ID Requirement

I don't think it has a thing to do with being liberal as much as to do with just being very young very naive and more than a little dishonest. You want to see some real hackery with super special videos to boot? Check out his "stellar debate" work in this thread starting at #33. He fled it to come to this one to spread more of his special stellar dust. The hackery from danarhea is just a bonus, though you will note it appealed to AdamT as well. So struck the well known stellar debate tactic of opting to go into an "ignore" trance.


http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/123811-why-should-care-ann-romneys-resume-w-52-a-4.html#post1060401691

To be a full-bown liberal is to be ethically deficient to begin with. It has everything to do with their logic, or lack of it, and other failings. That many folks are liberal when young is a given. That they become more Conservative as they age, and become wiser, and realize the value of honor and accountability, is also a given.

Regardless, to identify oneself as liberal is as to hang a sign on oneself announcing "I am a moron". It works only because our society enables so many morons, and as thus, stupidity is allowed to survive beyond a normal shelf-life as experienced by our Founders. They were very smart men, but they under-estimated the largesse of their fellow man.
 
To be a full-bown liberal is to be ethically deficient to begin with. It has everything to do with their logic, or lack of it, and other failings. That many folks are liberal when young is a given. That they become more Conservative as they age, and become wiser, and realize the value of honor and accountability, is also a given.

Regardless, to identify oneself as liberal is as to hang a sign on oneself announcing "I am a moron". It works only because our society enables so many morons, and as thus, stupidity is allowed to survive beyond a normal shelf-life as experienced by our Founders. They were very smart men, but they under-estimated the largesse of their fellow man.
To quote Moon Unit Zapa, gag me with a spoon. That is pure dogmatic drivel IMO. For every illogical "liberal" you can show me I can show you two illogical "conservatives"! In fact a number of them at DP come to mind, but I won't mention names. IMO it comes to standards of ethics and intellectual honesty and neither liberals or conservatives hold the corner on that market. I know people and even posters at DP who are both liberal and conservative and everything in between who are more concerned with what the truth is first, politics second. Your talking about stereotypes, but I won't deny there are more than a few of those at DP.
 
Last edited:
To be a full-bown liberal is to be ethically deficient to begin with. It has everything to do with their logic, or lack of it, and other failings. That many folks are liberal when young is a given. That they become more Conservative as they age, and become wiser, and realize the value of honor and accountability, is also a given.

Regardless, to identify oneself as liberal is as to hang a sign on oneself announcing "I am a moron". It works only because our society enables so many morons, and as thus, stupidity is allowed to survive beyond a normal shelf-life as experienced by our Founders. They were very smart men, but they under-estimated the largesse of their fellow man.

The terms liberal and Conservative don't actually denote someones intelligence.

Nor does it denote someones actual beliefs, because a liberal in 1850, is different to a liberal in 1950, is different to a conservative in Canada, is different to a conservative in England etc.

And it is true that so called "conservatives" like you have tried to turn liberal into a dirty word.

If one is to stick to what those words mean. Conservative is about maintaining the status quo, and liberal is about challenging that status quo.

In that case Liberals ended slavery.

Liberals got women the right to vote.

Liberals got African Americans the right to vote.

Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly citizens out of poverty.

Liberals ended segregation.

Liberals passed the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the clean water act, the clean air act.

Liberals created medicare.

What did the conservatives of their day do? They opposed every single one of those things.

Now if you've actually been paying attention to what I've been saying, I'm not trying to say Conservatives of today want slavery again, what I'm trying to say is these terms are relative to the time, and place we are in. So when you try to hurl that word around "liberal" as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from.

It won't work.
 
The terms liberal and Conservative don't actually denote someones intelligence.

Nor does it denote someones actual beliefs, because a liberal in 1850, is different to a liberal in 1950, is different to a conservative in Canada, is different to a conservative in England etc.

And it is true that so called "conservatives" like you have tried to turn liberal into a dirty word.

If one is to stick to what those words mean. Conservative is about maintaining the status quo, and liberal is about challenging that status quo.

In that case Liberals ended slavery.

Liberals got women the right to vote.

Liberals got African Americans the right to vote.

Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly citizens out of poverty.

Liberals ended segregation.

Liberals passed the civil rights act, the voting rights act, the clean water act, the clean air act.

Liberals created medicare.

What did the conservatives of their day do? They opposed every single one of those things.

Now if you've actually been paying attention to what I've been saying, I'm not trying to say Conservatives of today want slavery again, what I'm trying to say is these terms are relative to the time, and place we are in. So when you try to hurl that word around "liberal" as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from.

It won't work.
Wow you managed to one up Eighty Duece. I think you both just made my case.:doh
 
To be a full-bown liberal is to be ethically deficient to begin with. It has everything to do with their logic, or lack of it, and other failings. That many folks are liberal when young is a given. That they become more Conservative as they age, and become wiser, and realize the value of honor and accountability, is also a given.

Regardless, to identify oneself as liberal is as to hang a sign on oneself announcing "I am a moron". It works only because our society enables so many morons, and as thus, stupidity is allowed to survive beyond a normal shelf-life as experienced by our Founders. They were very smart men, but they under-estimated the largesse of their fellow man.
I have always found that those who call themselves conservatives are in reality nothing more than 18th century liberals who have never learned anything new. They hold to archaic ideas on science, economics, social values, on and on. Worse yet, they enjoy being know-nothings, they pride themselves on not advancing, not improving. Occasionally, they have a bit of self realization and will mouth a new concept, but it is only an act since deep inside they still hold to the old ways. This is particularly apparent when it comes to race.

The overriding concept for cons is authoritarianism, it is the basis of their beliefs. A male dominated structure where the dominate position is not questioned but where the roles of leader and follower are totally understood and abided by. It is backed by social darwinism and a militant, paranoid sense of fear that feeds itself and leads to self destruction.
 
The screeching sound? It is the screech of a derailment.

*clicks unsubscribe*
 
Wow you managed to one up Eighty Duece. I think you both just made my case.:doh

If you think I was trying to one up him on the Ridiculous partisan meter, you might want to re-read what I said.
 
I have always found that those who call themselves conservatives are in reality nothing more than 18th century liberals who have never learned anything new. They hold to archaic ideas on science, economics, social values, on and on. Worse yet, they enjoy being know-nothings, they pride themselves on not advancing, not improving. Occasionally, they have a bit of self realization and will mouth a new concept, but it is only an act since deep inside they still hold to the old ways. This is particularly apparent when it comes to race.

The overriding concept for cons is authoritarianism, it is the basis of their beliefs. A male dominated structure where the dominate position is not questioned but where the roles of leader and follower are totally understood and abided by. It is backed by social darwinism and a militant, paranoid sense of fear that feeds itself and leads to self destruction.

that is rather stupid. Its you lefties who crave a big powerful centralized government. most of us real conservatives want as small a government as possible.

You are the sheep not us
 
I have always found that those who call themselves conservatives are in reality nothing more than 18th century liberals who have never learned anything new. They hold to archaic ideas on science, economics, social values, on and on. Worse yet, they enjoy being know-nothings, they pride themselves on not advancing, not improving. Occasionally, they have a bit of self realization and will mouth a new concept, but it is only an act since deep inside they still hold to the old ways. This is particularly apparent when it comes to race.

The overriding concept for cons is authoritarianism, it is the basis of their beliefs. A male dominated structure where the dominate position is not questioned but where the roles of leader and follower are totally understood and abided by. It is backed by social darwinism and a militant, paranoid sense of fear that feeds itself and leads to self destruction.

Exactly what does all that have to do with liberals/democrats opposing voter ID laws so they can continue cheating?
 
Can you point to even one case where it was proven that an illegal alien voted?

I sure as hell can, and it was 20 years ago. In Orange County, California, Loretta Sanchez challenged sitting congressman Bob Dornan. Voter fraud was alleged, investigated, and hundreds of fraudulent ballots were identified. There was much hand-wringing over what to do, with various congressional calls to negate the results of the election. In the end, after months of investigation, it was decided that although there could have been thousands of illegal votes cast, mathematically they would not change the results of the election after counting the votes that could not be declared as illegal.

I remember this because it was in my district at the time, and I had voted for Sanchez so I did not want the election overturned. But yeah, fraud exists. It existed back then and it exists now.

Not much computerized because it was so long ago, but google if you want. Can't vouch for this source, but it talks about the case: Sound Politics: The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat
 
I sure as hell can, and it was 20 years ago. In Orange County, California, Loretta Sanchez challenged sitting congressman Bob Dornan. Voter fraud was alleged, investigated, and hundreds of fraudulent ballots were identified. There was much hand-wringing over what to do, with various congressional calls to negate the results of the election. In the end, after months of investigation, it was decided that although there could have been thousands of illegal votes cast, mathematically they would not change the results of the election after counting the votes that could not be declared as illegal.

I remember this because it was in my district at the time, and I had voted for Sanchez so I did not want the election overturned. But yeah, fraud exists. It existed back then and it exists now.

Not much computerized because it was so long ago, but google if you want. Can't vouch for this source, but it talks about the case: Sound Politics: The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat
Thanks DiAnna, for helping get the box cars back on the track. But..............................

When you mention Loretta Sanchez and fraud, in addition to the Doran election, well that opens a whole new can of worms!
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Caught in Multiple Scandals; Sex & Voter Fraud
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I will take the time tomorrow, if I feel like it, to respond to the overflowing liberal drivel of the last 10 posts or so. Suffice it to say, your cups runneth over with spittum.

That is some of the dumbest **** that I have ever seen posted here.
 
I will take the time tomorrow, if I feel like it, to respond to the overflowing liberal drivel of the last 10 posts or so. Suffice it to say, your cups runneth over with spittum.

That is some of the dumbest **** that I have ever seen posted here.
I'm sure we will all hold our breath and count the hours.
 
Thanks DiAnna, for helping get the box cars back on the track. But..............................

When you mention Loretta Sanchez and fraud, in addition to the Doran election, well that opens a whole new can of worms!
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) Caught in Multiple Scandals; Sex & Voter Fraud

And speaking of voter fraud convictions, here is a dosey of a case. And it even has a Doran/Gingrich connection. Happy reading!

Activist Nativo Lopez pleads guilty to voter fraud - Total Buzz - The Orange County Register : The Orange County Register

You make the assumption that the only thing people who want voter i.d. cards are interested in is Democratic votes. It's any and all illegal votes. Is it so hard to understand this isn't a partisan thing? I guess it must be.
 
You make the assumption that the only thing people who want voter i.d. cards are interested in is Democratic votes. It's any and all illegal votes. Is it so hard to understand this isn't a partisan thing? I guess it must be.
Actually no I don't and I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion. Though to me it is not a partisan thing, it is for a lot of DP members.
 
that is rather stupid. Its you lefties who crave a big powerful centralized government. most of us real conservatives want as small a government as possible.

You are the sheep not us
We want a govt that protects our INDIVIDUAL rights from those that want to destroy them...but they keep trying new ways, so the laws expand. If those who destroy would instead evolve and respect others, the need for these increasing sets of laws would not be needed.

And again, RW authoritarianism requires the followers. Read Altemeyer.
 
We want a govt that protects our INDIVIDUAL rights from those that want to destroy them...but they keep trying new ways, so the laws expand. If those who destroy would instead evolve and respect others, the need for these increasing sets of laws would not be needed.

And again, RW authoritarianism requires the followers. Read Altemeyer.

And again, some liberals will make up the craziest crap to try and cover up the fact that they oppose voter ID laws because it stops them from cheating.
 
Sorry. Don't want studies. Want proof. Want headlines. And then we'll duel -- 'cause I can match your studies/match your headlines that voter fraud is alive and well in the good ole' U.S.A.

No, I absolutely guarantee you that you can't. I've posted three studies on the subject of voter ID. Now you post your three studies showing that voter impersonation is, one, a real problem, and two, a problem that voter ID laws can fix.

:popcorn2:

:popcorn2:
 
We want a govt that protects our INDIVIDUAL rights from those that want to destroy them...but they keep trying new ways, so the laws expand. If those who destroy would instead evolve and respect others, the need for these increasing sets of laws would not be needed.

And again, RW authoritarianism requires the followers. Read Altemeyer.

yeah except your concept of individual rights tend to ignore the ones recognized in the constitution.

YOur concept of rights tend to be affirmative claims on the time and wealth of others
 
I sure as hell can, and it was 20 years ago. In Orange County, California, Loretta Sanchez challenged sitting congressman Bob Dornan. Voter fraud was alleged, investigated, and hundreds of fraudulent ballots were identified. There was much hand-wringing over what to do, with various congressional calls to negate the results of the election. In the end, after months of investigation, it was decided that although there could have been thousands of illegal votes cast, mathematically they would not change the results of the election after counting the votes that could not be declared as illegal.

I remember this because it was in my district at the time, and I had voted for Sanchez so I did not want the election overturned. But yeah, fraud exists. It existed back then and it exists now.

Not much computerized because it was so long ago, but google if you want. Can't vouch for this source, but it talks about the case: Sound Politics: The Sour Lesson Of Bob Dornan's Defeat

I never claimed that there is no voter fraud. But your example doesn't support your argument as it involved absentee ballots, and like almost all voter fraud it is not something that would have been prevented by these photo ID laws. See, that's another way that you can tell that Republican politicians don't really give a **** about voter fraud. It happens, but almost all of it is the result of manipulation of ballots by poll workers and fraudulent absentee ballots. So why aren't those issues being addressed? Why is all this effort being expended on a type of fraud that is virtually nonexistent? Pretty simple, really. Photo ID laws reduce Democratic participation.
 
You make the assumption that the only thing people who want voter i.d. cards are interested in is Democratic votes. It's any and all illegal votes. Is it so hard to understand this isn't a partisan thing? I guess it must be.

Is it really hard to see reality? Because if you look at reality, you will see that these laws are almost universally sponsored by Republicans, and Republican lobbying groups like ALEC, and they are almost universally opposed by Democrats. Do you really, honestly believe that Democrats don't care about voter fraud?
 
And again, some liberals will make up the craziest crap to try and cover up the fact that they oppose voter ID laws because it stops them from cheating.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support the premise that Democrats cheat more than Republicans? Save yourself some time and start with Watergate.
 
Is it really hard to see reality? Because if you look at reality, you will see that these laws are almost universally sponsored by Republicans, and Republican lobbying groups like ALEC, and they are almost universally opposed by Democrats. Do you really, honestly believe that Democrats don't care about voter fraud?

That's because democrats don't want the ability for illegal aliens, convicted felons, dead people and Disney characters taken away from them... And lets not forget how much they would miss multiple voting.
 
Back
Top Bottom