Obama election staffers have no problem with vote early and vote often.

[jjjayb]

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

"A subsequent United States Department of Justice report which surveyed homicide statistics between 1974 and 2004 stated that of the crimes surveyed, 52.1% of the offenders were Black, 45.9% were White, and 2% were Other Races. Of the victims in those same crimes, 51% were White, 46.9% were Black, and 2.1% were Other Races. The report further noted that, "most murders are intraracial", with 86% of White murders committed by Whites, and 94% of Black murders committed by Blacks.[6] It should be noted that the document does not provide any details concerning what races or ethnicities are included in the designations "White", "Black", or "Other Races".'


So I guess this statistic proves that laws against homicide are enacted to discriminate against blacks, who tend to be Democrats, right?

Obviously. Also, there's obviously no such thing as pretext. Can't exist.

[mikey23545]

Originally Posted by Literature

Obviously. Also, there's obviously no such thing as pretext. Can't exist.

In other words, after having your dick knocked in the dirt, you're just going to stick it in your pocket and slink home.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mikey23545

In other words, after having your dick knocked in the dirt, you're just going to stick it in your pocket and slink home.

You've made a pitiful analogy. Homicide laws have existed for centuries. They were not enacted as a pretext to lock up black people and they don't continue to exist as a pretext to lock up black people. Homicide laws exist for good reason: when someone kills another person, they should be punished because it is just and it deters further homicides.

On the other hand, voter ID laws are very new, and they were enacted as a pretext to disenfranchise demographics that tend to vote Democrat. The voter ID laws are backed by very little evidence of in-person voter fraud, and they negatively affect completely lawful citizens who deserve to vote for their representatives.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

You've made a pitiful analogy. Homicide laws have existed for centuries. They were not enacted as a pretext to lock up black people and they don't continue to exist as a pretext to lock up black people. Homicide laws exist for good reason: when someone kills another person, they should be punished because it is just and it deters further homicides.

On the other hand, voter ID laws are very new, and they were enacted as a pretext to disenfranchise demographics that tend to vote Democrat. The voter ID laws are backed by very little evidence of in-person voter fraud, and they negatively affect completely lawful citizens who deserve to vote for their representatives.

You got some proof for the bolded part of your statement, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Here are some of things that you need a photo ID for:

buy alcohol… beer or hard liquor
writing a check at most places
applying for credit
closing on a loan
getting a passport
getting on an airplane
adopting a pet
open a bank account
get medical care
serve on jury duty (in most places)
buying a car
rent a car
register a car
buy cigarettes, tobacco products…. if you look young enough
purchasing certain prescription drugs and in some states – it is required to purchase certain cold medicine
cash transactions of $5,000 or more

So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?

[alpha_omega]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

....So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?

Ha, reasonable is irrelevant...didn't you get the memo?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

You got some proof for the bolded part of your statement, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Here are some of things that you need a photo ID for:

buy alcohol… beer or hard liquor
writing a check at most places
applying for credit
closing on a loan
getting a passport
getting on an airplane
adopting a pet
open a bank account
get medical care
serve on jury duty (in most places)
buying a car
rent a car,
register a car
buy cigarettes, tobacco products…. if you look young enough
purchasing certain prescription drugs and in some states – it is required to purchase certain cold medicine
cash transactions of $5,000 or more

So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?

In some states you have to have a photo ID no matter your age to be in a bar. The fight against this is silly plain and simple. If you cannot manage to produce a photo ID you suck at life and not being able to vote is the least of your problems~

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

You got some proof for the bolded part of your statement, or are you just talking out of your ass?

You have to use the power of inference. It's very rare that a person publicly announces the underlining motivation behind the pretext. A very telling and remarkable moment was the Speaker of the Pennsylvania House announcing that the new measures would allow Mitt Romney to win the state. That's almost like a person who immediately after chiseling away the black districts outside of city limits in a new redistricting scheme goes, "There, now we can probably get a few respectable citizens elected to the City of Pleasantville Council."

Here are some of things that you need a photo ID for:

So if you need an ID for all of those, doesn't it seem reasonable to ask for an ID when voting?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to ask for an ID. I have no problem with moving towards those requirements. However, the way we move there has to be in recognition of the fundamental right that voting is. When thousands of legal citizens' right to vote is being threatened, and a lot of people aren't going to be able to get their photo IDs in time for the election, then we need to realize that their fundamental freedom trumps our desire to align voting procedure with alcohol purchases.

Why do you think these laws have been struck down by courts? It's because the procedure of their enactment has been unreasonable!

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by alpha_omega

Ha, reasonable is irrelevant...didn't you get the memo?

Let's put the test on you: How much do you care about reasonableness? Do you think the judicial orders dealing with these laws have been reasonable?

[La literatura]

One poster says to me: "Voter ID laws are not intended to disenfranchise anyone, stupid."

The voting ID laws were designed to disenfranchise minorities, old people, and poor people who tend to vote Democratic. The argument of In-Person Voter Fraud was a pretext for that underlying design.

A similar thing occurred in the Jim Crow era. Measures were enacted that established literacy levels or property requirements to vote. Nobody said, "We are enacting this law to stop the blacks from voting." Instead, they said things like "We just want a smart electorate to decide who should be the leaders of our state/city/etc" or "Property gives people a stake in the community. Propertyless people don't have a stake, so they don't care to make a good decision." These concerns were pretexts for the underlying design to stop black people from having a say in elections.

You people are aware of this history, correct? This was taught in your school, right? You've read some books about American political history and pretextual measures, right?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Literature

The voting ID laws were designed to disenfranchise minorities, old people, and poor people who tend to vote Democratic. The argument of In-Person Voter Fraud was a pretext for that underlying design.

As I have said, if you cannot produce a photo ID you suck at life. Those people have bigger problems than voting. I support their rights but have no problem admitting I would rather the did not vote or reproduce for that matter~

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

As I have said, if you cannot produce a photo ID you suck at life. Those people have bigger problems than voting. I support their rights but have no problem admitting I would rather the did not vote or reproduce for that matter~

Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

One poster says to me: "Voter ID laws are not intended to disenfranchise anyone, stupid."

The voting ID laws were designed to disenfranchise minorities, old people, and poor people who tend to vote Democratic. The argument of In-Person Voter Fraud was a pretext for that underlying design.

A similar thing occurred in the Jim Crow era. Measures were enacted that established literacy levels or property requirements to vote. Nobody said, "We are enacting this law to stop the blacks from voting." Instead, they said things like "We just want a smart electorate to decide who should be the leaders of our state/city/etc" or "Property gives people a stake in the community. Propertyless people don't have a stake, so they don't care to make a good decision." These concerns were pretexts for the underlying design to stop black people from having a say in elections.

You people are aware of this history, correct? This was taught in your school, right? You've read some books about American political history and pretextual measures, right?

So you maintain that the sole purpose that these laws were proposed is to disenfranchise voters. That at no time did any of these state legislators (over 30 of them) considered protecting the legitimacy of the actual election?

You sure do like playing that race card.

Comparing the current laws to Jim Crow is disingenuous at best.

I also fail to see how making a reasonable requirement of voting (a photo ID), is someone disenfranchising and racist. Do minorities not cash checks? Do they not get mortgages? Do they not buy cold medicine? Should we change those laws, and not require any form of ID for anything at all?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

Again, I fail to see how a photo ID is an "undue burden". You need a photo ID to collect welfare and food stamps as well...should we stop that, since it disenfranchises the unemployed?

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Literature

Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

I do not think that is RR's principle at all...but I cannot speak for him. He just disagrees with the definition of "undue burdens"

[RNR]

Originally Posted by Literature

Of course you wish they didn't vote. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people who you think suck at life have a right to vote. This country was founded upon the idea that people have an inherent right to choose who governs them. And people died to protect that right.

There used to be a principle of "I might not agree with what you said, but I'll defend your right to say it." Your principle seems to be, "I don't like what you're saying, so I'll just turn a blind eye when the government places undue burdens upon that."

Don't you have a son in the armed forces? What do you think he fights for? Presumably, American freedoms like voting, not drinking or adopting a pet.

Read my post again Jensen. I said I support their rights~