Agen Judi DominoQQ paling baik & Terpercaya

Agen Judi dominoQQ adalah salah satu tipe permainan judi yg demikian menarik utk kita bahas, tidak sedikit sekali beberapa orang yg mendapati keuntungan agung dari main-main judi satu ini. meskipun telah lama ada, tipe dominoQQ sampai hingga disaat ini demikian diminati bersama sekian banyak argumen. argumen mula-mula pasti saja dari system permainannya yg demikian gampang dipahami oleh penjudi profesional ataupun oleh para penjudi pemula. maka tidak sedikit dari pemain judi sanggup mendapatkan kemenangan dgn lumayan enteng. Ditambah lagi, kamu mampu memperoleh bonus kemenangan yg akbar kalau sukses mendapati kombinasi card teristimewa yg ada di permainan judi dominoQQ.

berkata berkenaan judi dominoqq, di internet sendiri kamu mampu menemukan tidak sedikit sekali agen judi online yg sediakan permainan menarik ini. & yg jadi masalah yakni masihlah tidak sedikit pun agen judi domino99abal-abal yg belum dapat diakui buat memberikan kenyamanan & keamanan buat para calon member yg bergabung. maka kita pula butuh buat berhati-hati sebab tak seluruhnya agen judi di internet sanggup diakui bersama baik. Diartikel ini kita bakal mengulas lebih dalam seperti apa trik menemukan agen judi domino99terbaik & terpercaya yg ada di internet. di samping itu, kamu dapat mendapati wawasan penambahan bahwa tak seluruhnya agen judi dominoQQ di internet mampu diakui. serta-merta saja simak ulasannya di bawah ini.

Ciri-ciri agen dominoQQ paling baik & terpercaya
sekian banyak ciri-ciri di bawah ini sanggup kamu pahami sebelum mencari agen judi dominoQQ online yg ada di internet, mari disimak baik-baik :
Lisensi & sertifikat resmi
sbg salah satu perusahaan penyedia pelayanan perjudian online, lisensi & sertifikat resmi yaitu aspek yg wajib utk disiapkan. Bukan sbg gambaran bahwa itu adalah perusahaan resmi perjudian tapi sbg tanda jaminan keamanan utk para pemain judi online. menjadi pastikan web yg kamu jenguk merupakan web judi domino99dengan lisensi & sertikat resmi.

mempunyai permainan yg adil
ke-2 yg tak kalah utama sbg ciri-ciri agen domino99aman & terpercaya yakni mempunyai system permainan yg adil. system permainan yg adil yg kami maksudkan disini yaitu memberikan permainan yg adil antara pemain satu bersama pemain yang lain, maka presentase & kesempatan kemenangan dari tiap-tiap pemain sama-sama agung & tak ada yg merasa dirugikan. Nah ini mutlak utk kita ketahui, ada tidak sedikit sekali agen judi yg mencurangi para pemain lebih-lebih yg baru saja bergabung.

Bebas pemain robot otomatis
Ciri-ciri satu ini yg hingga detik ini tetap diragukan oleh para penikmat judi domino99online, sekian banyak player bisa jadi sempat mengalami main-main judi disatu meja yg sama dgn bot automatic yg disetting oleh bandar judi. maka permainan terasa tak wajar sebab kemenangan demikian susah buat didapatkan. utk itu, kamu mesti memang sanggup menonton & menganalisa apakah permainan dilakukan oleh player/human atau oleh bot automatic. trik utk mengetahui apakah player tersebut bot atau human dapat dari kiat bermainnya, kesempatan kemenangan,

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

37 thoughts on “Agen Judi DominoQQ paling baik & Terpercaya”

  1. The Poughkeepsie Journal is a left wing Mommystate type of newspaper.
    Why would they run this story if it was not true?

  2. "there are in fact lots of people in this country who are eligible to vote but who don't have driver's licenses, and for whom the expense and inconvenience of getting one would be a problem"
    As for expense, the Vote ID bill recently passed by the House specifically provides for government payment of the cost of obtaining ID in those cases where it would have an adverse impact on the voter.
    As for convenience, if it is too "inconvenient" for someone to obtain the necessary documentation to vote, is this the sort of voter we want determining the representatives of our nation?

  3. Let's see, you need ID to cash a check at a bank, pay by check at a store, borrow a book, CD or DVD from a library, and buy alcohol (if you look too young).
    Yep, voting's less important than all that.

  4. But don't you see?
    It's not the abuse, it's the POTENTIAL for abuse.
    If potential rather than actual abuse was enough to justify compromising a program targeting terrorists, then it should be ample justification for scrutinzing voter rolls.

  5. In Massachusetts, where I live, people who don't have driver's licenses can obtain an official photo ID from the state. It is generally used as a proof-of-age for alcohol-related purposes. I assume it would also serve as proof for voting.
    I'm don't know if any other states have a similar ID but I would assume some do.

  6. The Democratic party has a long and illustrious history of recruiting dead people to vote. JFK wouldn't have been elected without the support of the deceased in Chicago. Jimmy Carter, in one of his books reminiscing about his early career in politics in Georgia recounted all the dead people he discovered on the rolls. Of course, in those days, Georgia was solidly Democratic.
    They've gotten more sophisticated about it but, we got a glimpse of the modern Democratic machine indulging in its gangster politics in the recount of the 2000 Presidential race, when Gore attempted to recount votes only in those districts where he believed he would pick up votes. Johnny Rocco in Key Largo described the game well:
    "I made them. Yeah, I made 'em, just like a — like a tailor makes a suit of clothes. I take a nobody, see? Teach him what to say. Get his name in the papers and pay for his campaign expenses. Dish out a lotta groceries and coal. Get my boys to bring the voters out. And then count the votes over and over again till they added up right and he was elected."

  7. Roger, AFAIK every state has such a program. In most cases the ID is done by the same people on the same machinery as drivers' licenses, and the ID issued is physically identical to a license. All the states require a nominal payment ($10-25) for the ID. In cases where the cost may be an insurmountable burden it can be forgiven. There are also both formal and informal methods of getting support. Hell, I'm a low-income Republican, and if somebody told me they needed $10 to get their state ID I'd probably give it to them. I couldn't do many, though.
    No one can cash a check without ID, which means no Social Security, no Medicare/Medicaid, no disability payments, no AFDC or any other welfare, in fact no access to public assistance of any kind. In most places you can't get prescription medicine legally without a legal ID, and few if any doctors will treat people without enough ID to at least create a plausible expectation of payment. Those requirements, plus the crackdown on liquor and cigarette purchases by teenagers, were the motivations for the ID laws in the first place.
    There may be a few hundred people in teenyweeny communities 'way out in the country who are known well enough by their neighbors to get by without ID, but it simply can't be done any more in any urban area or even large towns, whether the individual is poor and disadvantaged or not. Even the homeless tend to have ID, though they often throw them away because they, sadly, aren't sane enough to manage their own affairs.
    So the sad song of the Left about poor minorities and old people without ID is, simply and flatly, a lie. The question then is the motivation for the lie, and intent to commit fraud is sufficient and plausible. "Liberals" need to come up with another lament. The ratings on that one are abysmal.

  8. I'm not sure a work of fiction is good evidence.
    Voter fraud occurs most often in cities, because it's easier there. Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Kansas City are notorious. Chicago used to be, but I don't know if that still holds. Cities are largely Democratic. Even if there is more fraud in cities, it doesn't mean that Democratics are intrinsically more dishonest, just that it's easier to cheat in dense areas.
    Dead people still on the voting lists are a problem. Again, it is more likely to be a problem in densely populated areas, where it is harder to keep track of people. That likely gives Democrats more opportunity to abuse the glitches, but I don't know that means they actually have.
    The Florida and Ohio stories linked above are long on supposition, short on fact. In the current overheated climate, the fact that groups bring suit and make accusations is not evidence.
    So what do you propose we do about people on the rolls who are suspected of no longer being, technically, alive? Because your current position indicates that you agree with the Republicans that there are more dead Democrats on the list, but you oppose attempts to remove them because it might produce errors.

  9. The post states: "Republicans know that disenfranchisement disproportionately hits the elderly, the poor, minorities, and college students, all of them Democratic-leaning groups."
    There is no proof for any of this.
    The idea that requiring someone to produce an ID is some kind of "hardship" is such a joke it isn't worth serious discussion.

  10. Two points:
    1) Whether voting by inelligible voters is or is not a significant (in numerical terms)issue is a subject of debate. But to the extent that it occurs it is a real problem – and quite obviously an instance of dis-enfranchisement. In a 2 candidate race (which, for all practical purposes, is damn near every race in America), every single vote cast by an inelligible voter disenfranchises one elligible voter who voted for the other candidate.
    2) I find it perfectly plausible that Republicans are only pushing for ID checks at the polls because it will result in more Democratic voters dis-qualified. But I also find in perfectly plausible that the only reason Democrats are opposing what otherwise seems to be a commonsense procedural check consistent with good government principles, is that it will result in more Democratic voters dis-qualified.
    The height of political immaturity is to spot all of the nefarious maximizing moves by the Other Guy but to suppose that My Guy is fighting them out of selfless regard for capital T Truth.

  11. "So in fact there's no evidence whatever in the story that dead people voted in New York"
    Like there is no evidence whatsoever that there are ANY "who would be disenfranchised by a law requiring photo ID for every voter".
    Let's face it, the "voter disenfranchisement" theory peddled here by Klieman is just as theoretical as "voter fraud" theory peddled by Adler.

  12. Oh, I forgot to mention the most hilarious thing about Klieman's post.
    Kleiman says that Glenn "gleefully" linked to Adler's post. What possible evidence of "glee" could there be? Glenn's post consisted of NO COMMENTARY WHATSOEVER. And the portion of Adler's post that Glenn quoted was purely factual in nature.
    If you ever wanted evidence of Kleiman's inherent nastiness, this is it. The is no possible basis AT ALL for Kleiman's assertion of Glenn's glee, since Glenn provided no personal thoughts on the matter at all. The only possible explanation is that Kleiman wanted to take a gratuitous swipe at Glenn. There cannot be clearer evidence that Kleiman is just a bad-hearted, nasty person.

  13. Joe: You are right to point out that Mr. Kleiman's use of "gleefully" was a non sequitur and likely was based on projection of what he expects he would feel in Mr. Reynolds's situation. However, judging his whole personality on the basis of one injudicious comment seems a bit harsh. Can't you settle for something like "prone to suffer from spite and envy"?

  14. All that you need to do to get picture ID is travel to an authorized agency (usually someplace you can only get to by car, because they issue driver licenses), wait in line for about half a day, produce two picures of yourself with printed identification of yourself (a highschool yearbook or newspaper article that showed your photo) and pay a fee of $35-$50.
    I've helped a disabled person do this and it is a real PIB, believe me.
    It is very striking that Republicans commenting here haven't learned a thing from the results of stealing two presidential elections.
    Far from realizing that democracy is best because it produces better results, they seem to think that Bush is doing a heckuva job. Why do they hate America?

  15. "gleefully linked to by Glenn Reynolds"
    How can you tell when someone's link is 'gleeful'? I asm trying to write a script that only accepts gleeful links and need some help. Thanks in advance!

  16. I'm a democrat, and I'm all for a free national ID card issued to every citizen eligible to vote. I'm also for suspending the laws that prevent felons from voting, and for making voting a legal requirement–and for penalizing states and counties that don't get every person to vote. Voting day should be a national holiday, and there should be a paper voting trail for every vote.
    I firmly believe under those circumstances democracy would be served. Why will that never be proposed by a republican government or these republican ID freaks? Because they aren't interested in seeing everyone vote–they prefer hidden and obvious hurdles to prevent those who aren't good enough, or those who aren't republican enough, from voting. I'm willing to see the government, and my tax dollars, used to make sure everyone has a usable, free, voter ID and that every single person can vote at a time and place convenient to them–why aren't the republicans?

  17. Maintaining dead voters is very much like maintaining zombie computers, one wants them to still have something of a paper trail in the case of the former and to retain most of their functionality in the case of the latter. People who are dead but still show up as live on the SS rolls are actually far more valuable and far more difficult to detect.
    As for felon voting, I don't particularly feel happy with the idea of Charles Manson contributing his electoral voice. That strikes me as horribly flawed.

  18. I am firmly AGAINST forcing everyone to vote. There is no way to ensure everyone who votes is informed about the issues; by forcing the ignorant to vote, you increase the number of votes by people who either don't care or are being completely manipulated. How can this be good for anyone in the political arena?
    Incidentally, Louisiana has held most elections on Saturdays for a long time–that certainly hasn't helped their turnout or helped in producing competant leaders.

  19. "is this the sort of voter we want determining the representatives of our nation?"
    Dear mh –
    The Founding Fathers made no such distinictions among the citizens to whom they gave the right to vote. The implicitly moral test of fitness that propose can, of course, be justly applied only by a moral elite. And who would that be? Oh, obviously you. But who else? What if you are sick or dead? Who else belongs to the moral elite? Wouldn't it be safer to put the definition of the moral elite in the Constitution?

  20. Actually, Michael, the Founders let the determination of who could vote be made by the States; most of the States used a property qualification, a knowledge qualification, or both.
    I don't see how you could get through life with no ID. If you have a bank account, you needed ID to open it, and need ID to withdraw from it; if you don't have a bank account, you need ID to cash a check, and to access social services. Is there really a significant number of mentally-competent people who do not ever receive a check of some kind?

  21. Several commenters above are exactly right: You can't get Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and a bunch of other benefits without ID. But for the most part you can't get a job or open a bank account without ID either. So who are these people who are so desperately poor that 1) they don't have a job; 2) don't have a bank account; 3) don't have a car; 4) never engage in any of the many societal activities that require an ID; and 5) can't even afford $10 bucks to get an ID, but at the same time, 6) spurn all of the government welfare programs that also require an ID? And despite the fact that they live on nuts and berries in a cave in Wyoming, or somewhere similarly disconnected from the rest of the world, they nevertheless intend to vote, such that an ID requirement would disfranchise them?
    Come on. Try to make up something more believable than that. If you want evidence that dead Democrats have voted, give some solid evidence that one actual voter in the entire country is going to be disfranchised by a properly-crafted ID requirement.

  22. I've always found it harder to register to vote, and vote than to get a ID.
    All honest people should be in favor of ID, and computer programs that assist honest voting.
    I'd like to see a story on say New Yorkers getting absentee ballots for New York and voting at their winter home in Florida. How much of that goes on? One vote, one time for one election.s

  23. aimai —
    I lean more conservative, but here's what I think. ID, along with the measures inacted by the House to prevent it from disenfranchising the poor (hey, I was a broke college student not too long ago), should be required to vote. But a human-readable paper-trail should be required of every ballot to prevent voter error, programmer error, and malicious fraud (I'm not buying into one party controlled electronic machines; I've seen each side blaming the other and it's counterproductive). Furthermore, while I've liked the idea of national holidays, let's face it: people have to work during national holidays, too, and it's the hourly worker that sees the most of it. A different idea that I'd heard is a requirement that every full-time employee who has a shift during polling hours must be allowed time off to go vote.
    I'm not for suspending the laws against felons voting, but I think there ought to me a much more clear-cut method for return of voting rights to prior felons who have cleaned up their act. I also don't think that people should be forced to vote — some people don't want to vote if they don't know the issues, some people don't want to vote if they don't like the candidates, and I think these are valid reasons. Furthermore, by inforcing penalties on the counties that don't have everyone voting, you set the stage for rampant fraud (Question: Voter A was in a car crash and is in a coma. Now what? Answer: Vote for him!).

  24. So, does Mark actually have any evidence that absentee ballot fraud is practiced mostly by Republicans, or is this just a partisan cheapshot?
    In California, there is a sitting Democrat State Senator (Ed Vincent) who was found by a court (published opinion, called Hardeman v. Thomas) to have been personally involved in absentee ballot fraud in an Inglewood city council election while he was Inglewood mayor. He was coercing elderly voters (mainly women) into voting as he told them to or giving him their unmarked ballots (with signed ballot envelopes). After leaving the Inglewood mayorship but before being elected to the State Senate, he served in the State Assembly, where he chaired the Elections and Reapportionment Committee.
    That's the sort of wink-and-a-nod at fraud that tars an entire party, not just one individual.

  25. "I'm also for suspending the laws that prevent felons from voting, and for making voting a legal requirement–and for penalizing states and counties that don't get every person to vote."
    Tyranny exists when that which is not forbidden is required.

  26. "by forcing the ignorant to vote, you increase the number of votes by people who either don't care or are being completely manipulated. How can this be good for anyone in the political arena?"
    I have noticed that there are two different views of voting in a Democracy.
    One view is that it's a mechanism for setting policy and chosing the people who run the government. From this perspective, ideally you only want informed, engaged people voting, and the idea that people who can be easily discouraged from voting are actually contributing something valuable with their vote, rather than just noise in the system, is absurd.
    The other view is that voting is some kind of mystical legitimizing process, and that it really doesn't matter if the people casting that vote have the slightest clue as to the issues and candidates, the only thing that matters is that they participated.
    I've noticed that most opponents of voter ID belong to the latter school of thought.

  27. "No one can cash a check without ID […]"
    People keep saying this, and it simply isn't true. I've had an online-only bank account for two years now. I've never met a rep. from the bank, never faxed them anything, and never mailed them anything other than a signature card and checks.
    They have never seen my ID. You can get a similar account from a number of providers (I'm not going to link, so as to avoid looking like a spammer, but google it, you can't miss them) trivially.
    It is either ignorant or dishonest to keep asserting this.

  28. And you've taken these checks to somebody, and gotten cash in return for them, without ID? Which is what "cashing" a check means?
    Nobody ever said you had to have ID to deposit checks.

  29. It was clearly implied (if not stated outright) that ID was neccessary to practically anything, so not having an ID was not an option for most people and anyone who said it was hard was being disingenious, if not outright lying.
    If you use a debit/credit card (i.e. Visa logo) from a bank where you have always had an account (like my mother has), and have everything deposited by mail (like my mother and most of her friends), then not only do you not need to have a driver's licence, but going downtown to DMV in NYC, waiting for up to 5 hours (the least I ever waited for DL/ID issues: there is usually only 1 window open, and 10's to 100's of people)is going to represent a very different experience than going to her polling place (3 blocks), Grocery store (2 blocks and she's shopped there for years and they know her on sight and no-one ever asks for her ID) etc. etc.
    I can't imagine it would be that much different from the resident of a small town in (for example) rural Georgia, known to all but no DMV within 25 miles. Or Miles City, MT. Or and small town OR large city in the US.
    It IS hard to get to DMV if you don't drive. And you really don't need a DL/ID for most of your life. Just ask a few people who manage it. Actually go into the innner city and ASK. You'll be surprised. But typically it's the Dems who do this, not the Reps.

  30. And Brett, is it you who decides what a well-informed voter knows? Or me? How do you tell if a voter is well-informed? Do they vote like you? The opposite? Is it polling that tells you? Have you surveryed voters to find out?
    Also, how do you know about this mystical process relating to voting being a characteristic of people who are against Voter ID? Any studies you'd like to bring up?

  31. Jason, the comment was:
    "penalizing STATES and COUNTIES that don't get every person to vote."(Emphasis mine)
    This is not the same as penalizing people who don't vote. We already penalize STATES for not getting people to obey the speed limit.

  32. I don't know about other states, but in California it has been a state law for as long as I can remember, that every person in the state over the age of 18 MUST have state issued ID. If the law already requires people to have government issued ID, then what is the problem with showing it before you vote. Remeber, if you don't have government issued ID then you are already in violation of the law. Should law violators be allowed to vote?

Comments are closed.