Soxbadger

QUOTE (bmags @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:50 PM) That's not creating a system, that is the system, a system which is remarkable for how free of that type of voter fraud exists. That is merely speculation. I dont think voter fraud is that big of a deal, but I do admit that if people were being clever I may not have any clue they are doing it. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:52 PM) There's also this odd implication that only Democrats would engage in in-person voter fraud. That would only be because you read it defensively. I think both Republicans/Democrats want to disenfranchise those who wont vote for them, enfranchise those who will vote for them. Its nothing more than knocking off signatures on a primary, you do whatever it takes to win, regardless of the facts, because winning is the ultimate goal.

1st amendment and threats are a tricky one. Im a huge 1st amendment person. That being said, should there really be protection for speech that is threatening violence/crime? For speech that's purpose is to intimidate others? I guess my belief is that it should be related to assault. That there has to be an actual ability to carry out the threat. This creates terrible interpretations obviously. But I dont think yelling at Lebron "Im going to murder you if you dont miss this free throw" at a game should be actionable. I do think threatening Lebron and saying that if he shows up at the game you are going to do something bad to him, could be actionable.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) Restricting the enfranchisement would seem to be a workable definition. And so would creating a system to increase your chances of getting duplicate or false votes. This is about winning a game, nothing more, nothing less.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) One side wants less people to vote and is blatant about what group of people that would be (likely opponent voters). The other wants more people to vote. I feel pretty comfortable prescribing sinister, anti-democratic motives to one side in this case. It depends on how you define "anti-democratic". I think both sides would rather win by cheating, than lose in a fair fight.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:16 PM) Hey I agree. But i'm not the one pretending like one side is fighting for the little guy while the other party is only doing it for sinister purposes. I think that they are all motivated by sinister purposes. Which is why I dont want either to have my information.

I just always wonder why people believe that either party wants a fair fight. They both want a fight where the odds are stacked in their favor.

SS, Its not about voter fraud at all. You can completely erase voter fraud without actually needing people to take pictures so we can create more databases to track citizens. You just need a database that is actively updating. Now someone could hack the database, but then again, some one could hack the voting machines.... Its interesting what the govt puts out there as what we should worry about, as compared to what would really be the likely way to manipulate voting.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 04:01 PM) I don't get it. It's relatively simple. When you're born, you have get a certificate. By law, you're supposed to get an SS#. Those two things everyone has and they're free. Take that to a local post office/drivers license facility/courthouse, whatever. Use that document, get your picture taken and get an photo ID. Use that photo ID for various services including voting. 99.9% of the country already does this. Why is it that so difficult? You have to do more to do just about anything else in life. Why is voting so different? If voting was such a sacred right that can't be infringed even a little, then registration should be thrown out the window. Who cares why they have you register, if it affects someone's right to vote (as in, you CAN'T VOTE AT ALL UNLESS YOU REGISTER), then that should be abolished. If you can physically make it to the polling station, your vote counts. End of story. Why should I have to put my picture on a govt regulated item? Isnt my ss and birth certificate enough? Perhaps it doesnt impact you, but coming from a group of people that was persecuted by govts for over 2000 years, you get a little nervous any time people want you to "register" because "its for your own good" I remember back in the Middle Ages when they just wanted the Jews to put a little yellow star on themselves. Thats not a big deal, why shouldnt you have to tell the govt who you are? When has it ever gone wrong that the govt has used information to select and target people... If you are going to argue for such an increase in govt power, at least give me a reason why that is the ONLY/BEST method. Seeing as its not even a legitimate or good method to decrease voter fraud, it just simply seems like a way for the govt to get more information/better control its people.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:55 PM) I honestly don't know. We know it happens, we don't know to what degree. Provide people free ID's if they need them. Drive people to polls if you want. But make sure that the people that vote are living people who are physically present at the polling station (or that can be tracked to make sure there's not any double voting with absentee ballots). It's f***ing 2013. We have the means to do this. Yep and it doesnt require a license. I can create a fake id for a dead person. The real answer is just taking accountability and actually spending time matching names with register rolls. If someone who is dead voted, an id isnt going to tell you that. A death certificate and a ballot will. Ironically in that situation the id does nothing to help, if anything the fake id would probably make it so no one checked the rolls. Its just making up nonsense to get more govt power. (edit) Or here is another non-intrusive way. Prior to election have internet database of all registered voters. Voters name is then converted to secret id number. Voter is given id number. Id number goes on ballot. Ballot is scanned and id number is marked off database. If another ballot is scanned with same number, red flag, both ballots pulled. If a ballot is scanned without id number, red flag, ballots pulled. Its 2013, its simply creating a database and cross referencing. A license does not help this problem at all.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:47 PM) I don't know what you're talking about. I never limited it to a drivers' license. Get a photo ID. It achieves the same purpose. Right you want more rules where people have to give the govt information and have no problem with that. I want less rules where people have to give the govt information. I dont like requirements that people have photo ids and licenses. I find that unnecessary.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:45 PM) I fail to see how offering up an ID is "government in your life" anymore than having a social security card or a birth certificate or whatever. It's simply providing evidence that you are who you say you are and not someone else. You don't need a driver's license. Get a regular state-issued photo ID. Something official with your mug on it so that an election judge can say "yep, that's you" instead of someone else. It is a considerable escalation to go from pieces of paper with my name and information, to something that has my actual picture and can be easily used to track me down for voting against the party in power. Its great that you are concerned about voter fraud, but my concerns are about govt abusing power. Seeing as that there are historically far more examples of govts using information as a way to control people, I am going to argue against that, until its proven that voter fraud presents a greater risk. We all know where this goes. Ids, approved, but then the argument is that people are making fake ids. Well only 1 way to solve that, we have to put tracking devices in the ids, that way we can make sure that the person is who they say they are and we can make sure they are coming from the same place. And so on and so forth. We must remain vigilant against the expansion of govt power or else one day the people will have nothing left. Voter nonsense is nothing more than each party trying to get some sort of advantage. You wont stop that, no matter how many rules we make. But we can stop making rules, we can stop giving govt more and more power. Each person is entitled to their own opinion. I just find govt power more of an issue, then voter fraud, which to the best of my knowledge, is anecdotal and the evidence is flimsy at best.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:38 PM) Lol, ugh. So again, why have any requirements at all? Some dumb person might have to deal with a "complicated" process. The horror! Well you have to have some requirements if you are going to base voting on where people live, have districts etc. Which is why registration is done by where you currently live. Not by what your drivers license states. Which is why drivers license requirement is nonsensical under the current rules of voting. But I guess some people just like more rules and more govt intervention. Not I.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:23 PM) Anonymous? You have to register to vote. How is that any different? Btw, I have to spend [insert price of a stamp because I honestly don't know these days] in order to register. Rabble, rabble! Disenfranchisement! Bunch of raycists! Infringing on my rights! Rabble, rabble! Because registering to vote is so that you are voting for the right ballots, as elections are based on where you live. Drivers license is unnecessary and superfulous. I hate govt in my life, I dont want to give them any unnecessary information. I find drivers license and more information about me to be completely unnecessary. The govt does not need it to prevent voter fraud. Drivers license is not required of all adults in the US, therefore its unnecessary and irrelevant. If you love big govt and you want to give govt more personal information, that is your call. But I dont. I dont like the govt. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) FWIW voting wasn't anonymous until the late 19th century. Society evolves, I dont want society to devolve. Anonymity is important.

Because voting is supposed to be anonymous so that our freedoms arent encroached. Kind of the entire reason why ballots are sealed. But I guess if that isnt a good reason anymore, we might as well just be able to vote online as long as we provide our SS number, and then they can just list our votes for everyone to see. That will end voter fraud, if I can check my vote make sure its right and make sure no one else voted under my name. But then again, we value privacy/secrecy. Guess it just depends on how much you want big brother in your life.

Wrigleyville will be fine with or without the Cubs. Its basically just another Lincoln Park at this point, its just a place where people congregate to get drunk, like Division, 6 corners, etc.

Bo Ryan has a pretty great record in the first round, maybe as good as any coach in the NCAA tournament. That being said you never know what can happen, but there is very little historical evidence to suggest that a Bo Ryan coached team will lose in the first round. The only reason to take Ole Miss is that you think Henderson is going to go bananas. I guess Kenpom is pay now, but hes Wisconsin as a top 10 team based on advanced statistics. Sagarin has Wisconsin at 13. Found some Kenpom stuff here: He has Wisconsin as 50% chance to Sweet 16, which is higher than most 5 seeds. In fact he only has 7 teams having a better chance of making a final four than Wisconsin. In comparison K-State the 4seed, has a 21.7% chance to Sweet 16. Now once again anything can happen. If Ole Miss goes insane shooting, Wisconsin will lose. If Wisconsin cant shoot, Wisconsin will lose. But I just dont see a ton of reason to believe that Ole Miss should win this game. Ole Miss is undersized, Wisconsin will try and pound Berg/Evans down low. With those guys out there, if Dekker/Bruiser are on the court Ole Miss will have to use a guard on them. I really dont think Ole Miss will dictate pace, likely will become a half court game. The K-State game is tougher because its in Kansas, so basically home court.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 19, 2013 -> 11:53 AM) Would anyone expect impartiality out of Dickie V. if he was talking about what he saw in Duke practices? What do you mean babby? We are talking about Duke baby? They got the slash, the dash, they got the grind and wind. Its insanity baby. He literally just says nonsense.

Im fine with reviews to get a call right. I hate the end of games that are delayed by ft contests.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 10:10 PM) I'm pretty sure there is no offensive goaltending in international rules. Pretty sure you are correct

Not sure why Pierce just decided to throw up a miracle.

Grr song stuck in my head, clearly dont know enough of the lyrics. Drives me insane.

lol Bones with a hilarious 3s Company reference, Swedes move in with "Janet" and "Chrissy"

As a neighbor of Wrigley, I approve this move. Wrigleyville gets people regardless of Cubs games at this point. And Id bet that some fans would still go to bars near wrigley during the games.

Sadly there are still countries where even if something like this is reported, its rare if something happens. As far as we have come, women still are not treated that well. A lot of guys really sicken me.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 06:15 PM) You should get Marty to post on your site. His sources have Hahn bringing back Ozzie in a year or 2. Hmm Have you ever wanted to work for a free blog before, where you get no money, but people want you to have higher journalistic integrity than reporters making 6 figures? If so, I think we could work out a real great deal because that idea has comedy gold written all over it.