Originally Posted by Botnst (Post 3311580)

We have a liquor sales law in my state which limits the sale to people aged 18 and over.

If eligibility is not checked how would we know whether the law is working?

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel (Post 3311574)

I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that you didn't understand the post you quoted at all.......

Investigate, build a case, get an indictment and prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.... Isn't that how it's supposed to work?
Some of us would prefer to allow that process to take place before passing judgement.

All your arguments are showing is that you are faithfully toting the republican party line. Guess all your protestations about partisanship only apply when it's the other side....

Originally Posted by MTI (Post 3311691)

Yes, I wasn't sure how to respond to the post. There was a police investigation into the break in. I seem to also recall the name Archibald Cox as special prosecutor . . Judge Sirica . . .

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3311843)

Yes, all that happened, but it didn't START with that Special Prosecutor. Woodward and Bernstein got a tip, and investigated, and published their results/ allegations BEFORE there was any Court action.

How is the report of massive voter fraud not like that? It starts with an allegation, and people investigate, and if they turn up something of substance, THEN it goes the Court route.

Would you prefer that no one investigated into the allegations of voter fraud?

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3311843)

Yes, all that happened, but it didn't START with that Special Prosecutor. Woodward and Bernstein got a tip, and investigated, and published their results/ allegations BEFORE there was any Court action.

How is the report of massive voter fraud not like that? It starts with an allegation, and people investigate, and if they turn up something of substance, THEN it goes the Court route.

Would you prefer that no one investigated into the allegations of voter fraud?

Originally Posted by Jorn (Post 3311876)

The only difference is that Watergate started with the mainstream media (Washington Post) going after the government and OP's posted report is one made by the government (at state level). Doesn't look like the same to me.

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3311898)

Would you allow time to see what develops, or are you not even interested.

This should NOT be a partisan issue.

One more incident of voter fraud, I think pretty much universally recognized... In 1960, the Democrat machine in Chicago gave the election to JFK. I believe Nixon was advised that he would likely win if he protested, but he declined saying he did not want to put the country through that kind of a crisis.

It has happened. If we do nothing, it will happen again. Maybe next time it will be the "other" party that wins by fraud.

Originally Posted by MS Fowler (Post 3311898)

Would you allow time to see what develops, or are you not even interested.

This should NOT be a partisan issue.

One more incident of voter fraud, I think pretty much universally recognized... In 1960, the Democrat machine in Chicago gave the election to JFK. I believe Nixon was advised that he would likely win if he protested, but he declined saying he did not want to put the country through that kind of a crisis.

It has happened. If we do nothing, it will happen again. Maybe next time it will be the "other" party that wins by fraud.

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3311927)

Ha hah! Nixon did not protest because he was cheating somewhere else just as badly! I always suspected that but it was revealed by a Nixon insider recently in a book.

Originally Posted by 4x4_Welder (Post 3312003)

Can someone show me how requiring an ID to vote gives a negative effect to the "poor"? I have to pay for all my own stuff, the supposed "poor" people seem to refer to here get a debit card loaded with my tax money. Requiring extra ID would be more of a burden for working people, as they would have to take time away from being productive to get this ID.
People act like the evil republicans are wanting to put a cover charge on the polling places-

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel (Post 3309683)

Laws which deny using welfare ID or Student ID are a couple examples I feel are not fair.
Laws which require birth certificates from previously acceptable voters who do not have a birth certificate fall into the same category.

The R's have done a masterful job of entwining their voter suppression and gerrymandering efforts into the larger debate about voter ID.
- Cutting early voting times is not a voter ID issue.
- Redrawing districts to eliminate minority representation is not a voter ID issue
- Restricting voter registration drives is not a voter ID issue
- Requiring ID which cannot be gotten at no cost to the recipient is not a voter ID issue
- Eliminating same day registration is not a voter ID issue
- Limiting the number of polling places is not a voter ID issue