Supreme Court to hear Indiana voter I...

Supreme Court to hear Indiana voter ID law

There are 108 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Jan 9, 2008, titled Supreme Court to hear Indiana voter ID law. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments today on the constitutionality of an Indiana law that requires Hoosiers to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, before voting.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Pork the Dorks

Monon, IN

#103 Jan 11, 2008
fluteman greg wrote:
<quoted text>I'm assuming you understand this but you conveniently left it out of your logic. The exact same thing would be true wrt majority if Kerry had been elected.
Weren't you arguing just to argue with the Hamilton County, Cool Creek Park, gay guy scandal? I think I remember your position as it was okay to do whatever you want in the park. And if kids or families didn't like it, they could leave.
Was that about right. Maybe the name says more than you really want it to.
Get serious

Indianapolis, IN

#104 Jan 11, 2008
fluteman greg wrote:
<quoted text>I'm assuming you understand this but you conveniently left it out of your logic. The exact same thing would be true wrt majority if Kerry had been elected.
Of course I understand that. I'm not having any trouble with the math, you are. My entire point is that nobody's actually had a true majority in years, Democrat or Republican.
Get Real

Indianapolis, IN

#105 Jan 14, 2008
Then I would go so far as to say most all the presidents in the last 20 years have not been the majority. What do youj propose then, it is law that you have to vote? No one leaves office or gets the new office until all people have voted? If that was the case people would be in office for decades. People make their own choice to vote or not. It is a right not mandatory. There for if people choice not to vote how can youo try to count their vote?
Get serious wrote:
<quoted text>I understand that. I have never said otherwise. In fact I stated that myself in an earlier post. He got the majority of the votes CAST.
<quoted text>But people who were registered and did not vote DO exist and they CAN be added up. So are the citizens who aren't even registered.
I'm talking about every citizen in the country. All of them. Including those who are citizens but are not registered to vote. You know, The People.
Of each and every citizen, less than a quarter actually put pen to paper and voted for Mr. Bush. That means most of The People did not vote for Mr. Bush.
Certainly the man got enough Electoral College votes to become President, but he was not elected by the majority of the people.
mollagig

Pittsburgh, PA

#106 Jan 14, 2008
INDYGIRL wrote:
What on earth is the big deal? Don't you have to have an ID to cash a check, buy a car, rent or buy a house? Get one and shut up already!
Democrats are afraid of this law because the only way they have ever won anything with their demented politics, is through illegal criminals, and just plain criminals voting in the elections. And may i note that the only party opposing this law is the democrats.......HHHHMMMMMM..
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#107 Jan 18, 2008
Pork the Dorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Weren't you arguing just to argue with the Hamilton County, Cool Creek Park, gay guy scandal? I think I remember your position as it was okay to do whatever you want in the park. And if kids or families didn't like it, they could leave.
Was that about right. Maybe the name says more than you really want it to.
You've got it completely backwards. It was the other guy that wanted to allow just about anything in the parks. My position was the park isn't any place for open adult sex.
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#108 Jan 18, 2008
Get serious wrote:
<quoted text>Of course I understand that. I'm not having any trouble with the math, you are. My entire point is that nobody's actually had a true majority in years, Democrat or Republican.
Thanks for the concern, but my math is top notch. No problems here.
pork the dorks

Monon, IN

#109 Jan 18, 2008
fluteman greg wrote:
<quoted text>You've got it completely backwards. It was the other guy that wanted to allow just about anything in the parks. My position was the park isn't any place for open adult sex.
Sorry, and thank you for correcting me. I too am against public sex in family parks. Especially, two guys with a tube of prep H
fluteman greg

Palo Alto, CA

#110 Jan 18, 2008
pork the dorks wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, and thank you for correcting me. I too am against public sex in family parks. Especially, two guys with a tube of prep H
LOL. I think that particular person was just trying to waste my time talking about open sex in our public parks. That will never happen.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sellersburg Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sellersburg Police (Sep '07) Tue Small Town Girl 38
News Grandfather of Indiana teen found dead near hik... (Mar '17) Apr 16 Gary johnson 153
William "Bill" Collins Psych NPRN Apr 15 ASAP 2
Anyone know about kilijha mann Apr 14 Naughty girl 2001 10
Stephen Reid and Ashlee kirchner Apr 13 Anonymous 1
Review: Red Ball Recycling (Jul '14) Apr 12 grade lane groupie 3
News Justice For David Camm (Dec '08) Apr 11 Marie 8,252

Sellersburg Jobs

Personal Finance

Sellersburg Mortgages