View Single Post
  #21  
Old 12-30-2005, 12:07 PM
tylerdurden tylerdurden is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: actually pvn
Posts: 0
Default Re: The last stand of the American Republic....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you live in Florida your right to vote for president was taken away. If you vote on a diebold machine, your right to vote does not exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

For a third time I'll ask you for specific citation of credible proof beyond any doubt of yet another one of your ridiculous claims that persons' rights to vote for president have been stripped or denied. Specific proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? There's plenty of documented cases of people, in florida and elsewhere, that have been improperly denied their vote. In florida specifically, many people were removed because they had names similar to some convicted felons.

Here's a story from 2004:

http://news.tbo.com/news/MGB7TQUZ5VD.html

[ QUOTE ]
Hundreds of people wrongly removed from voter rolls in 2000, who never committed felonies or whose rights had been restored, may not yet have been put back on the rolls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spend five seconds on google and you can find a lot more documentation.

Note that while right-wingers tend to attempt to manipulate voter demographics by disqualifying voters, left-wingers tend to attempt to manipulate voter demographics by making it easier for unqualified people to get to vote. Assuming you can accurately identify qualified voters you think will vote for your opponent and get them wrongly disqualified or that you can accurately identify unqualified people that will vote for your side and get them improperly snuck into the voting booth, both tactics have the same *net* effect. The difference is that one prevents specific, identifiable people from casting votes, while the other cancels out votes of legitimate voters, but does it in a way that doesn't produce a specific, identifiable victim. Is one more reprehensible than the other?
Reply With Quote