"John" wrote in message
news:2tfu24dm217ae077bm2ghihtl1scb65jf5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 19:50:38 -0700, Nonnymus wrote:
>
>>Bill wrote:
>>> Nonnymus wrote:
>>>> Perhaps I just don't get it, but why would someone NOT have a passport
>>>> nowadays?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Nonny
>>>
>>> Ugh, this topic again. You're right, you don't get it. Here is
>>> the answer:
>>>
>>> 1) It is not a requirement that you have one.
>>> 2) Not everyone travels to a place that requires them.
>>> 3) They are not free (or close to it, especially for a family).
>>> 4) They have a limited shelf life, so if you don't need it and
>>> get it just for the hell of it, it will be valid for less time
>>> once you actually need it (never mind the short valid period for
>>> kids).
>>> 5) They're not trivial to get (as in you fill in a form and mail
>>> it).
>>>
>>> Is that good enough for you? When you start the "Nonnymus
>>> Passport Fund" and pay for passports for everyone who doesn't
>>> need or have one, then you can ask your question again.
>>>
>>
>>. . . and when not having one is inconvenient, you get to moan and whine
>>about how you should be exempted from the need. I bet that the same
>>folk also don't get immunizations before visiting the jungle, resent
>>having to carry liability insurance on their auto and don't feel a need
>>to be registered or have ID to vote. It infringes on their "rights."
>>Nope, if you're going out of the country, a passport speeds things up
>>for you, the folk BEHIND you in line and for the poor Immigration folks
>>trying to process all those people.
>
> I don't feel a need to have ID to vote.
>
> I guess you are one of those Republican bastards trying to keep poor
> and elderly Americans from voting because they have no ID.
> The Republicans figure they can stop many of the people I mentioned
> who would probably vote Democrat.
>
> Indiana just passed a law requiring ID to vote.
>
> Some of the ridiculous rules written into the law were:
>
> The authorities in Indiana wouldn't accept an expired passport as
> valid ID.
>
> The authorities in Indiana stopped many University of Notre Dame fro
> voting because they had driving licenses from out-of-state. Of course
> it was OK for the students to drive in Indiana but the students were
> required to have an official ID from Indiana.
The last time I read the law, one is entitled to vote in the locale of their
permanent residence, which requirement dates to a war we had in the 1770's
(remember taxation without representation?). Driver licenses are based on
one's residence for the past six months. The Notre Dame students have the
option to vote absentee from home or to apply for a local license. The
students are not denied the vote, they just have to be intelligent enough to
do it right. You should have known that yourself instead of launching your
tirade. Surely you don't object to voters being registered. Other than
providing some sort of ID, how can the polling place know who is eligible to
vote? By the way, I'm elderly and a republican, but I'm not dumb enough to
hang my chad. I wonder what people without passports will do in the event
of illness, injury, accident or arrest while cruising to another country.
Seventy five cents a month for a passport might seem pretty cheap.
Harry Cooper
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com |
