alprova said... The day when there is absolutely no trust left, is the day this world should come to an end.
In God we trust, all others we audit. Trust has led to some of the biggest cons and abuses of authority in history. Trusting your spouse, friends or family is not the same as trusting the public at large. I don't know you and would not trust you as far as I could throw a car. When people start a conversation with "I will not lie to you" or "you can trust me" my suspicion level rises rapidly. I bet you lock all doors, own a gun and probably have or have had an alarm system? What level of trust does that indicate?
Will you accept a promise to pay or do you require a contract if you sell something on credit?
There are instances where someone votes for someone else on the voter list. There are examples of dead people still being on the eligible voters list. There was a 60 minute special where people could register to vote with no check for eligibility or identification.
"Democrats, liberals are against photo ID because they consider it a republican initiative the same way republicans have a knee jerk reaction to democrats initiatives."
alprova said...Such as? I know of no Democratic initiative that could begin to be considered an act of voter suppression.
The reaction by both parties is not limited to the voter ID issue.
It is almost automatic that when one proposes the other opposes.
Fairmon asked: "Why?"
Well, let's start with the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads as follows;
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Now, keeping that Amendment in mind, try and understand that while there are all you purists running around believing that the Constitution is not an evolving document and that it should be honored as it was written and amended, there is a wee bit of hypocrisy to note.
There is nothing in the amendment violated by requiring a photo ID. You and others keep leaping to the conclusion it impedes by
race, color or having been in servitude (a slave). It does not and anyone that desires to vote can obtain a qualifying photo ID.
Do you really think requiring a photo ID will change the results of a single national election in the entire U.S.? The chances of that are essentially nil. It may deter someone from attempting to vote that is not eligible or from those few that vote for someone else.
Democrats, liberals are against photo ID because they consider it a republican initiative the same way republicans have a knee jerk reaction to democrats initiatives. Frankly I don't give a damn if photo ID's are required or not. Those in office have more critical issues they should be reconciling but they like busy work with low consequences. There is a tax (penalty) for not buying healthcare insurance, should there be a tax (penalty) for failure to vote?
A third of the people in this nation are a lost cause. They swallow everything conservative media talking heads spoon feed them, without EVER balancing that with other sources of information, to arrive at logical decisions.
You could just as easily say a third are lost to the other or liberal extreme. it is a bell curve with the approximately 20% of us in the middle that doesn't care for or support either party actually electing a candidate. I rarely vote in primaries since I prefer allowing the party loyal to select their candidate then I will select my favorite in the general election. For example
the democrats may have a candidate that may win the 3rd district, Fleishmann is not much to brag about.
Anyone who can present a voter registration card or their name, legal address and attest that the card or address is true and they are a legal resident should be able to vote with no restriction.
This cartoon is like a TV rerun, we have seen it several times.
I agree with alprova and admire him for being willing to change when the facts change. Those intelligent and mobile enough to vote can get a picture ID.
In my opinion the law will not change the results of any vote but it may help assure only those eligible to vote do so. I would like to see something that increased the percent of eligible voters that actually vote.
Panicking about it is quite silly and ridiculous.
I agree and I am not in a panic but caution is reasonable. Are you sure you know hos the two infected came to do so? Why would any healthcare worker after those two became infected agree to care for an Ebola patient?
alprova said...Sir, there are TWO cases in TWO weeks.
True, and is not true those were two lower level healthcare workers. How many deaths so far? Only two I think so I guess you are right no reason for congress and the media to react just because the virus is very deadly. Apparently the major risk is to those attending to the afflicted. Should we consider them expendable?
Wash your hands often and keep them away from your face and avoid contacting bodily fluids of those infected is the current advice.
Those dummies that caught the virus must not have done that and are themselves to blame, is that correct? They are accused of not following the protocol but exactly what the violation was has not been publicized, the steps taken to communicate and educate them of the protocol has not been publicized, the steps being taken to prevent a recurrence is still not clear.
alprova said... The chances of this disease spreading to any great number of Americans in this nation are next to ZERO!!
Is it zero or just next to it? What would you call a great number of Americans? Those two recent cases need to hear those calming words. It would probably help them to hear.. "don't worry you are among a very unfortunate few, a great number of Americans will not be affected". Another way to say it would be "your azz may die but there won't be very many, maybe none, experience the misery you face."