Well, you could try - ask him for a serious no-bullshit adult coherent spell-checked clarification. Or maybe that’ll just overstimulate his “herpity-derp!” reflex.
Maybe ask him to say something really really funny, and out of robotic spite he’ll respond with something coherent and straightforward.
That’s a lot, from the “huh?” you posted, I would like to know who could extrapolate that question from “Huh?”
why is it we send troops to distant shit holes to die for others right to vote, all the while not vetting the people who vote for politicians that send them there in the first place?
But you didn’t want a question, you wanted an answer I suppose, well I typed it all out, then decided not to post it, to many delicate creatures around here that like to call me names and say stuff like
or this beauty
,
I will say that the last reference was to insure that someone would get the meaning, my mistake was that anyone here would be able to see it for what it really was, I do apologize!
Now to go back and read that list of rules again!
You’re taking offense at a little name-calling…and they’re the “delicate creatures?” How does that work?
Troops are sent to “distant shit holes” to kill, and occasionally die, for various reasons, but others’ right to vote has nothing to do with it.
Why is it that you refuse to address the points I - or anyone else - have made? Again, let me quote from ABCnews.com:
So how would IDs prevent voter fraud? The majority of fraud were either genuine mistakes, or concerned absentee ballots. How would ID have prevented that?
Because, Freedom isnt free
I don’t believe your premise.
Facts, are. Inconvenient.
I’m with ya there, man. Start believing facts and who knows far down the rabbit hole that may lead?
So how many drunk drivers are their in the US? And how many are indicted?
How many shoplifters are there? How many are indicted?
How many underage smokers are there? How many are indicted?
How many underage drinkers? How many have been indicted?
Now tell me how all the instances of voter fraud were reported and 40 is the final number?
Of all the posts in this thread, this one confuzzled me the most.
I understand not understanding the First Amendment if you’re not an American.
But for the love of all things cheddar cheese and pork sausage, why would you call something a violation of a law you admittedly know nothing about?
And then your first reaction after seeing what you perceive as a total disregard of the First Amendment (about which, again, you admittedly know nothing) isn’t to read the First Amendment, but rather to publicly accuse someone of violating it.
Can someone explain this logic to me? I’m not actually capable of comprehending it as it’s written here.
Hey. it’d be great if every person who commits voter fraud could be instantly identified and efficiently prosecuted with no chance whatsoever that a legitimate voter will lose their vote in the process.
As it is, people who are not driving drunk do occasionally get falsely arrested for it. People who are not shoplifters get accused of shoplifting. People who look too young and drink are asked for ID even if they are over 18 or 21 or whatever. It’s acceptable since drunk driving, shoplifting and underage smoking and drinking are all more serious than voter fraud, in their scales and effects.
The last part is were we differ, I think voting is easily as important as anything you can do, just my opinion tho.
Voting IS important. But why would someone risk that kind of penalty (prison) for one vote? On a small scale, voter fraud isn’t even effective.
What do you find to disbelieve in my premise? Is it the ABCnews.com story? Should I cite others? Because I can. But what does it take for you to at least attempt to believe my premise?
Great, but I wasn’t talking about voting, I was talking about voting fraud.
You can’t just accept that I don’t ?
Your not going to sell me that not having ID is better than having it, and I’m not going to sell you on voter iD either, you can also trivialize my point as long as you want but your right to vote is not , in theory or fact, lost by voter ID, you have one vote, no one is stoping you from making it count by demanding ID.
And no one is stealing your vote now. No one.
No one.
No. One.
[quote=“Bryan_Ekers, post:194, topic:691392”]
I understand “well-regulated” (it’s not a particularly complex concept, after all),
[quote]
Interestingly enough, some people think “well-regulated” means supervised by and authorized by the government. They are probably unaware of the “well-regulated” militias formed independently by colonists such as George Mason that were actually opposed to the government of the time.
Following your logic then, if someone were convicted of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater then their right to free speech would be permanently abridged. Someone convicted of voter fraud would have their implicit right to vote permanently suspended.
Is there any other inalienable right that is never restored to a person convicted of violating a common sense restriction on that right? I am not aware of any.
Is there any doubt that a convicted felon intent on procuring a firearm could not easily do so within 48 hours of release from prison? Theft, black market firearms, straw purchases or getting a firearm from a fellow criminal are all possibilities. Now it’s possible to 3d print a serviceable handgun that will shoot long enough to do a job. They used to make zip guns out of car antennae in the bad old NYC gang days.
Seems smarter to have an ex-felon go through the normal Form 4473 procedure. At least that way you know what he has.
Admittedly, I am not that good at Snark. I should leave it to professionals such as yourself.
Or this fellow.