Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas

[JohnR! 5,495]

You are mixing it all up and you are wrong. This is not abut returning stuff at the mall or getting your workout. Requiring ID to vote, as some of these states have tried to do, infringes on our constitutional rights. More so, when states like Texas do so with the purpose of discriminating against certain minorities. Unfortunately it seems they believe that preventing legitimate voters from casting their ballot and stuffing ballots is the only way the GnOP can get anyone elected anymore.

On a separate note, if you are being asked to show id to return merchandise, sue the merchant. They have no legal right to ask for your ID for returns.

Sheer nonsense. Of course we should prevent the unqualified (non-citizens, illegals, unregistered, non-residents in the district, criminals, those who already voted earlier in the day) to vote. If you really do not think proving your identity is important for exercising one of the most important privileges of American citizenship, we should abolish mandating IDs for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING. I mean for air travel, getting a driver's license, entering the country, opening bank accounts, during hospitalizations, returning a store purchase, working out at the gym, attending the Academy Awards, entering the White House, etc., etc., etc.

And you got it backwards -- stuffing the ballots is the Dem's specialty.

[Pooky 3,343]

Requiring ID to vote, as some of these states have tried to do, infringes on our constitutional rights.

Good to know that, on this basis, you support the purchase and ownership of firearms without the need to produce ID to do so.

More so, when states like Texas do so with the purpose of discriminating against certain minorities.

A spurious claim for which you have absolutely no proof ... as usual.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well you've come about 80% to my side of the argument. Now your only arguing quantitatively the degree of power each as.

That's wishful thinking on your part - of which you have displayed quite a bit already in this thread. I have maintained that unlike a gun a vote is neither designed to kill nor does it ever do that. Ever. I am still 100% on my side of the fence. That would the side commonly referred to as reality.

If you want to get into the spirit of literalism, a gun is not designed to kill. It is designed to launch a projectile at high speed in the direction in which the barrel is pointed.

It is the human element that makes the choice about the target at which the gun is pointed.

Just as it is the voter who chooses for whom they will vote.

As always, it is the fault of the human, not the gun, not the vote. The human did it.

Right. Guns were designed for sporting - they're really no different from a golf club, right?

[JohnR! 5,495]

The fact remains the voting ID laws can't stand on their own as known by all and memorialized by the Court's decision. Even with the usual red herrings, that can't be denied.

That's wishful thinking on your part - of which you have displayed quite a bit already in this thread. I have maintained that unlike a gun a vote is neither designed to kill nor does it ever do that. Ever. I am still 100% on my side of the fence. That would the side commonly referred to as reality.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The fact remains the voting ID laws can't stand on their own as known by all and memorialized by the Court's decision. Even with the usual red herrings, that can't be denied.

This is true. I have just never seen as red a herring as presented by Sousuke here. That one just really takes the cake.

[Pooky 3,343]

Right. Guns were designed for sporting - they're really no different from a golf club, right?

Quite the contrary, both are designed to launch projectiles, just of different types and in different manners.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Quite the contrary, both are designed to launch projectiles, just of different types and in different manners.

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you'll believe it one day. People know what guns are designed to do. It's why we equip our soldiers with them when we send them into combat.

[Pooky 3,343]

Keep telling yourself that. Maybe you'll believe it one day. People know what guns are designed to do. It's why we equip our soldiers with them when we send them into combat.

And soldiers are sent into battle by politicians. In this country, politicians are voted into office. Without the vote, the gun does not get used.

As always, the human element is responsible. Without that, people die from natural causes, like old age, disease and moose. Moose are lethal.

[JohnR! 5,495]

:thumbs:

Any port in a storm...

This is true. I have just never seen as red a herring as presented by Sousuke here. That one just really takes the cake.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

A spurious claim for which you have absolutely no proof ... as usual.

No more spurious than the claim that voter ID is needed to root out voter fraud. A specific form of voter fraud, no less, for which there is absolutely no proof that it exists in any meaningful magnitude ... as usual. If Republicans were interested in combating voter fraud, they'd tighten the rules around voting by absentee ballot because that is where most of the voter fraud actually occurs. Of course, they don't want to do that because it isn't about voter fraud at all. Which leaves what as the motivation?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And soldiers are sent into battle by politicians. In this country, politicians are voted into office. Without the vote, the gun does not get used.

As always, the human element is responsible. Without that, people die from natural causes, like old age, disease and moose. Moose are lethal.

That's not the point and you know it. They're sent into battle with guns rather than golf clubs or tennis racquets because only one of these "sporting instruments" is designed for a purpose other than sporting. You know that, of course, but you like that red herring so much that you just can't let go. And how many times are guns used to kill without there ever having been a vote on its use? That's right, thousands of times each year in this country alone. How is that possible?

Edited October 11, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[Pooky 3,343]

No more spurious than the claim that voter ID is needed to root out voter fraud. A specific form of voter fraud, no less, for which there is absolutely no proof that it exists in any meaningful magnitude ... as usual. If Republicans were interested in combating voter fraud, they'd tighten the rules around voting by absentee ballot because that is where most of the voter fraud actually occurs. Of course, they don't want to do that because it isn't about voter fraud at all. Which leaves what as the motivation?

Did I make any such claim?

Nice try, but a fail nonetheless.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Did I make any such claim?

Nice try, but a fail nonetheless.

You were looking for proof that voter ID laws are aimed at disenfranchisement. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. What other purpose could these laws have? The stated purpose is nonsense and everyone knows that. Republicans have even been caught admitting it more than once. Do some reading on the issue and you'll learn something.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Reason won't get you anywhere here.

You were looking for proof that voter ID laws are aimed at disenfranchisement. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. What other purpose could these laws have? The stated purpose is nonsense and everyone knows that. Republicans have even been caught admitting it more than once. Do some reading on the issue and you'll learn something.

[Pooky 3,343]

That's not the point and you know it. They're sent into battle with guns rather than golf clubs or tennis racquets because only one of these "sporting instruments" is designed for a purpose other than sporting. You know that, of course, but you like that red herring so much that you just can't let go. And how many times are guns used to kill without there ever having been a vote on its use? That's right, thousands of times each year in this country alone. How is that possible?

And going back to Sousuke's argument, people never intend their votes to result in deaths, yet it still happens, far too often.

Your diversion into felony homicides is far more of a red herring, to this particular discussion, than stating the literal design intent of a firearm.

It is always the intent of the person that dictates the ensuing consequences. Not the vote. Not the gun. The human being.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Pooky