Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Swampfox10mm]

This is why Democrats don't want ID's to be required for voting in the US elections:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/08/DC-Polling-Place-Holder-Ballot

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

You can vote without an ID?

[comm]

[Leon]

I wouldn't trust anything that O'Keefe says, as he is a known liar and fraud.

His ACORN Video

""So let's just recap for a moment the ACORN scenario. You lie to get into � the offices. You lie, subsequently, about the lie you told to get into the offices. You edit the pimp shot into the trailer to create the illusion that you were somehow wearing it during your sting. You go on television wearing the same pimp outfit and let interviewers observe, uncorrected, that that�s what you were wearing when you confronted the ACORN employees. If your journalistic technique is the lie, why should we believe anything you have to say?"

"The AG's Report was released on April 1, 2010: it found the videos from ACORN offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Bernardino to have been "severely edited"; it found there was no evidence of criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees, nor of any evidence that any employee intended to aid or abet criminal conduct. It found that three employees had tried to deflect the couple's plans, told them ACORN could not offer them help on the grounds they wanted, and otherwise dealt with them appropriately. Such context was not reflected in O'Keefe's edited tapes. The AG's Report noted that, because the Giles-O'Keefe criminal plans were a ruse, the ACORN workers could not be complicit in them. It found no evidence of intent by the employees to aid the couple"


NPR Video
"Comparison of the raw video with the released one revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson, opinion writer in the Washington Post, who wrote, "O�Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie."[54] Time magazine noted that the video "transposed remarks from a different part of the meeting", was "manipulative" and "a partisan hit-job"

Not to mention that in many cases his methods are criminal

"O'Keefe and colleagues were arrested in New Orleans in January 2010 during an attempt to make recordings at the office of United States Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat. His three fellow activists, who were dressed as telephone repairmen when apprehended, included Robert Flanagan, the son of William Flanagan, acting U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of Louisiana.[18][19] The four men were charged with malicious intent to damage the phone system.[20] O'Keefe said he entered Landrieu's office to investigate complaints that she was ignoring phone calls from constituents during the debate over President Barack Obama's health care bill.[21] The charges in the case were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses.[22][23] O'Keefe and the others pleaded guilty on May 26. O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O'Keefe#Praise_and_criticism

Not saying that there isn't room to debate the voter ID laws, but using James O'Keef is not the way to do it. If you thought CNN was bad for selectively editing the 911 call, than this is much worse stuff.

[Leon]

Where is the fraud though, all the evidence shows that it isn't really an issue, but I would be open to change my mind if anyone had proof otherwise. Here is a lot of research on this topic for anyone inclined to learn about it instead of just talking about it.

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/

[stilicho25]

That link you provided is all kinds of crazy Leon. Anyone who passed American history in high school knows that the political machines at the turn of the last century had massive fraud operations going. Even today Chicago and and Boston have vestiges of that old system. While I am not sure the extent of it today, some photo ID seems a pretty reasonable thing to have to provide in order to participate in the political process.

[Leon]

[stilicho25]

The all kinds of crazy is the reaction that I had to the way they framed the issue. They took some cases where fraud wasn't as pervasive an issue as people initially claimed, and sort of implied that voter fraud in general should be treated the same way, without mentioning the massive fraud that has existed historically. From the recesses of my addled mind I want to say that last time it was critical in an election was the JFK election? That isn't that long ago, and truthfully you can debunk cases pretty easily but without some sort of trustworthy oversight it isn't easy to tell how widespread fraud is. I mean the stuff about JFK and the Daleys came out like 30 years after the fact right?

[Leon]

[NYC_Gal 2.0]

I've always had to show ID to vote back home.

[stilicho25]

Not as clear as I had remembered, but from wiki

first part of the article says the prosecutor got no convictions (backing your point), so take this part (which backs mine) with a grain of salt.

"Nevertheless, the Chicago Tribune wrote that "the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory."[19] Had Nixon won both states, he would have ended up with exactly 270 electoral votes and the presidency, with or without a victory in the popular vote."

So anyway, just like now, election fraud was a contentious issue. I still stand by premise that it has been a problem historically, although it is not clear that it has continued into modern times. Taking that as a cue, showing an ID should not really be that onerous a task when voting. Its pretty minimal really.

[northway]

Provide free government-issued IDs and I'll be on board

[Swampfox10mm]

[Leon]

[Swampfox10mm]

Yeah, we should all line up and trust the ultra-libs from THAT source.

Ask yourself if a 1.1% difference would have changed the outcome in the Florida ballot count between Bush/Gore in 2000. OF COURSE IT WOULD HAVE!!!



Fact is, most people want to have some form of ID check at the polls, but the Democrats are dead-set against it.

Ask yourself why they would be?

You can see linked above where there was an offer for free ID's in one state, but the Democrats would have nothing to do with it.