Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Adrift]

To be fair to Sea - he has been here since the crash in 2014 - so had no way of knowing I used to use this avatar. From his perspective, I'm the Johnny-come-lately.

Eh, Sea was around back when you were around, but yeah, it's not like the avatar really belongs to anyone, so... yeah.

[carpedm9587]

Eh, Sea was around back when you were around, but yeah, it's not like the avatar really belongs to anyone, so... yeah.

Fortunately - there are enough stars to go around...

[Raphael]

Fortunately - there are enough stars to go around...

Depends on which Doctor Who episode you''re watching.

[Mountain Man]

Depends on which Doctor Who episode you''re watching.

Don't get me started on Doctor Who. I'm still pissed that they're shoving a female Doctor down our throats.

[Raphael]

Don't get me started on Doctor Who. I'm still pissed that they're shoving a female Doctor down our throats.

I will see how she goes in the role before I make a judgement on the new doctor.

It was already established ages ago that Timelords can change gender when they regenerate.

[carpedm9587]

Don't get me started on Doctor Who. I'm still pissed that they're shoving a female Doctor down our throats.

Sexist...


P.S. You DO know you don't HAVE to watch.... right?

[Mountain Man]

I will see how she goes in the role before I make a judgement on the new doctor.

It was already established ages ago that Timelords can change gender when they regenerate.

"Ages ago"? You mean the last couple of seasons.

Anyway, I won't get into it here since there's a thread on the topic:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...he-Tardis-star

[Cerebrum123]

Don't get me started on Doctor Who. I'm still pissed that they're shoving a female Doctor down our throats.

I pretty much stopped watching right before they switched out Matt Slick.

[Roy]

It was already established ages ago that Timelords can change gender when they regenerate.

"Ages ago"? You mean the last couple of seasons.

So you're unaware of The Curse of Fatal Death. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Mountain Man]

So you're unaware of The Curse of Fatal Death. Can't say I'm surprised.

I assume you're being sarcastic, but for the uninitiated, that was a comedy sketch and not established "Doctor Who" canon.

[Sparko]

I hate to tell you this, but insisting that voters have Voter ID won't it easier to detect fraud. Unless you're DNA tagging each voter and then matching that up, people who really want to commit voter fraud will find a way to do it.

that is why they need photo IDs. and at least the person in the ID will only get one vote, even if he lets someone else use his card. But yeah there will always be some way to game the system. I am just against opening the flood gates and having no checks at all. To think that wouldn't be abused is naive.

[Sparko]

First of all - I never said I was against VoterID laws (see my previous posts). And statistics about how many support it doesn't counter the data that outlines how many will be disenfranchsed if the voter ID laws are implemented without regard to those who will indeed be disenfranchised. Your mixing apples and oranges. I f I were polled, I would say I support VoterID laws. That does NOT mean I want them implemented in a way that disenfranchises people when there are ways to implement them that don't.

You folks keep arguing againstt hings I'm not saying - and providing arguments that don't refute the underlying point. At this point, I've basically repeated myself multiple times, so it's long past time I step away. Last word to ya'll - if you so desire.

and yet when I said the same thing, that I support voter ID requirements and even cheap methods for voters to get photo IDs, you kept arguing against me and saying I was for disenfranchisement. You are harder to pin down than jello with a nail gun.

[carpedm9587]

and yet when I said the same thing, that I support voter ID requirements and even cheap methods for voters to get photo IDs, you kept arguing against me and saying I was for disenfranchisement. You are harder to pin down than jello with a nail gun.

Umm.. go back and read my posts, Sparko. I have been fairly clear that VoterID is not, per se, a problem. Disenfranchisement is. If VoterID requirements are implemented before a VoterID infrastructure is in place and registered voters without IDs are equipped with those IDs (or have been given reasonable opportunity and resources for doing so), then I object on the basis of what I have already outlined. I have voiced admiration for an ID system (see the post about South Africa), and explicitly noted the disconnect with what is being done here.

If I have been sloppy with language, please point to the posts that were problematic and I will clarify or appologize. If we have been agreeing violently, then I certainly apologize. Your posts left me with the impression that going gangbusters with a VoterID program without taking time to ensure no one's vote would be disenfranchised. Indeed - I seem to recall you explicitly saying that you didn't care if some validly registered voters couldn't vote as a result. Didn't you express that opinion?

Edited to add: You can look at your post 1500 for why I have this impression. But I also missed some posts in the flurry of exchanges, so I never saw your post 1492, in which you said,

So I agree with you that we should be working to make sure everyone has an ID rather than arguing that people should be able to vote with no ID. That is the way to solve the problem, you get voter checks to make sure only eligible people are voting and everyone has a photo ID to use for all of the things they are needed for in today's society.

This suggests we might be agreeing violently. I think the only possible point of disconnect is that I believe the VoterID system should be implemented and reasonable efforts made to make sure everyone who is a validly registered voter has one BEFORE it is mandated in order to vote. Based of the database of actual voter fraud, the delay will have negligible impact on voting, a valid assumption because there is negligible evidence of voter fraud to date.

[carpedm9587]

Um, how do you allow for the cases which are not prosecuted for whatever reason? Without it, your fraud rate has no meaning - you're arbitrarily assuming all cases were successfully prosecuted, which is silly.

No - I'm not. I'm citing the fact that this database does not say what it is being purported to say - and the statistics derived from it are not adequate to substantiate a case for widespread voter fraud at a statistically significant rate. There is some evidence of the cases that WERE brought to trial and a conviction was not possible. There is no data, as far as I know, about htings NOT brought to trial. So I cannot make an argument against the claim that voter fraud is widespread on the basis of that information, and you cannot make a case for a claim that it is either. The absence of evidence is not an argument in this situation.

[Cow Poke]

Disenfranchisement is.

That whole notion is weird. If somebody really WANTED to vote, they'd make the effort. It's a matter of "how important is this"?


I think the problem is that the Democrats would have a harder time going into a neighborhood with buses and vans and swooping up "whoever" to vote for their side.

Here's the definition:

: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

disenfranchising the poor and elderly

Nobody is depriving them of the right to vote. If they're not interested enough in voting to attempt to meet the requirements, maybe they should stay home. There are a LOT of other qualified people who do.