Why is a picture ID opposed for voting?

On Aug 11, 6:12 pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...Fdd4ae8204bf7b


Nope, my point is solid and logical, and my reasoning is sound and
consistent. Requiring walk in voters to show photo id containg date
of birth/address/drivers license number, exposes the voter to an
increased risk for identity theft, an undue burden. You are mandating
a voter increase their risk to identity theft, in order to cast a
vote.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:


Nope, my point is solid and logical, and my reasoning is sound and
consistent.

No, your point is puerile and not realistic.

One wonders if you have ever been inside a polling place to say the
really dumb things you keep saying could happen.

On Aug 11, 7:53*pm, wrote:" One wonders if
you have ever been inside a polling place to say the really dumb
things you keep saying could happen."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1d2f5ad6c1faa9

iF if vote or not, really is not the point is it? As identity theft
effects voters and non voters, democrats and republicans, liberals and
conservatives a like. But to clarify earlier in this thread i stated
that the california ballot is usually quite a responsibility, in 2008
we had 12 propositions state wide, and many local measure to read/
study/debate. Dude your replies are getting rather comical, come on
back with a better reply, if you can.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:53Â*pm, wrote:" One wonders if
you have ever been inside a polling place to say the really dumb
things you keep saying could happen."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1d2f5ad6c1faa9

iF if vote or not, really is not the point is it? As identity theft
effects voters and non voters, democrats and republicans, liberals and
conservatives a like. But to clarify earlier in this thread i stated
that the california ballot is usually quite a responsibility, in 2008
we had 12 propositions state wide, and many local measure to read/
study/debate. Dude your replies are getting rather comical, come on
back with a better reply, if you can.

Yet another pile of rambling, puerile nonsense.

You have obviously never been in a polling place and are utterly clueless.

In article
,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Aug 11, 7:53*pm, wrote:" One wonders if
you have ever been inside a polling place to say the really dumb
things you keep saying could happen."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1d2f5ad6c1faa9

iF if vote or not, really is not the point is it? As identity theft
effects voters and non voters, democrats and republicans, liberals and
conservatives a like. But to clarify earlier in this thread i stated
that the california ballot is usually quite a responsibility, in 2008
we had 12 propositions state wide, and many local measure to read/
study/debate. Dude your replies are getting rather comical, come on
back with a better reply, if you can.

.... and YOURS are getting pathetic! Come back when you dry out.

On Aug 11, 8:49*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:"" snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...037969b011ee60

you mean you have nothing left thats logical or reasonable, just your
lame attempts at insults, which means my argument stands, and my point
is spot on.

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:49Â*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote:"" snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...037969b011ee60

you mean you have nothing left thats logical or reasonable, just your
lame attempts at insults, which means my argument stands, and my point
is spot on.

Your arguement is puerile, unrealistic rambling and your point is
difficult do find amidst all the rambling.

Are you on drugs or drunk?

On Aug 11, 8:35*pm, wrote:""snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1da8fad0457cc8

Mandating that a voter show a picture id (driver’s license being the
most common) reveals, name, date of birth, address, driver’s license #
(if card is used), at a place where the voters name and address are
found on a printed list. You are creating a focal point for personal
information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
steal information, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. That focal point is a place where close to 70%
of the total voting population will be revealing their personal
information in a 1-day window. The total popular vote for president
in 2008 was just under 130 million, the state of Missouri’s poll
worker instruction manual boasts about its 20,000 poll workers.
That’s quite an opportunity you are creating for lots of money to be
stolen (unintended consequences), based on the ideal of creating a
100% clean election. Absentee ballots are subject to tampering, so to
increase mail in ballots would not assure a clean election, which
means your so called solution is nothing more than a dodge, in an
effort to make walk in voting 100% clean, you just skipped over the
other option, which is not 100% clean. You did this by using with the
statement "Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely
separate issue.” which is an illogical fallacy, based on the fact you
are trying to clean up the election process. Such poor logic on your
part begs the question as to why you think the poll volunteer vetting
process is not subject to flaws/mistakes/misses/tampering. In fact
when pushed your only assurance that identity theft will not occur at
the polling place is that "anal little old ladies" are on duty, which
is pure idiocy on your part. Identity theft protection includes
shredding waste that contains important information so people who go
through a households *TRASH*, have a harder time stealing your
identity. The typical household waste contains food/dog/cat/toiletries
along with the personal information we are told to shred, this sits
and stews a week before it goes to the curb. With today’s cell phone
cameras, one only needs a press of a button to capture an image of the
voter roll (address and voters name), and a good memory for numbers
when inspecting the photo id, to gather such crucial personal
information. So if people are willing to go through a person’s week
old curbside trash just to get *one* persons personal information,
stealing numbers from a polling place to get a lot of peoples personal
information is not too far out of the realm.

In article
,
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:

On Aug 11, 8:35*pm, wrote:""snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1da8fad0457cc8

Mandating that a voter show a picture id (driver¹s license being the
most common) reveals, name, date of birth, address, driver¹s license #
(if card is used), at a place where the voters name and address are
found on a printed list. You are creating a focal point for personal
information, a potential situation for a person/group of people to
steal information, based on a mandate that all walk in voters share
personal information. That focal point is a place where close to 70%
of the total voting population will be revealing their personal
information in a 1-day window. The total popular vote for president
in 2008 was just under 130 million, the state of Missouri¹s poll
worker instruction manual boasts about its 20,000 poll workers.
That¹s quite an opportunity you are creating for lots of money to be
stolen (unintended consequences), based on the ideal of creating a
100% clean election. Absentee ballots are subject to tampering, so to
increase mail in ballots would not assure a clean election, which
means your so called solution is nothing more than a dodge, in an
effort to make walk in voting 100% clean, you just skipped over the
other option, which is not 100% clean. You did this by using with the
statement "Everything is subject to tampering and that is an entirely
separate issue.² which is an illogical fallacy, based on the fact you
are trying to clean up the election process. Such poor logic on your
part begs the question as to why you think the poll volunteer vetting
process is not subject to flaws/mistakes/misses/tampering. In fact
when pushed your only assurance that identity theft will not occur at
the polling place is that "anal little old ladies" are on duty, which
is pure idiocy on your part. Identity theft protection includes
shredding waste that contains important information so people who go
through a households *TRASH*, have a harder time stealing your
identity. The typical household waste contains food/dog/cat/toiletries
along with the personal information we are told to shred, this sits
and stews a week before it goes to the curb. With today¹s cell phone
cameras, one only needs a press of a button to capture an image of the
voter roll (address and voters name), and a good memory for numbers
when inspecting the photo id, to gather such crucial personal
information. So if people are willing to go through a person¹s week
old curbside trash just to get *one* persons personal information,
stealing numbers from a polling place to get a lot of peoples personal
information is not too far out of the realm.

If you are so paranoid that poll workers will steal your ID, then why go
there at all?

If, as you claim, they are crooks, what is to stop them from
substituting your ballot for one that is already marked? How do you know
that YOUR ballot didn't just go into the shredder?

My advice to those opposed to voter ID is: DON'T VOTE!

In rec.aviation.piloting columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Aug 11, 8:35Â*pm, wrote:""snip
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.g...1da8fad0457cc8

Mandating that a voter show a picture id (driver’s license being the
most common) reveals, name, date of birth, address, driver’s license #
(if card is used), at a place where the voters name and address are
found on a printed list.

Yes, but you haven't the slightest clue how polling places work which
means you haven't a clue how puerile and unrealistic your whinning
about possible identity theft from this is.

snip rambling nonsense