And scientists have revised their conclusions when they realized they were in error. So evolution and global warming are in trouble, just as soon as they do.
Or it’s a fallacy to use the claim you just did.
You pick.
Scientists will also revise their conclusions about the medical efficacy of unicorn powder just as soon as they are proven false. Which works for scientists because they have a very defined set of protocols for fact.
The law ain’t like that. You may dearly wish it were, but it ain’t. The law is people, as people change, the law changes. Science seeks to find facts that are not alterable by opinion. But the law must change precisely because of a change of opinion.
We are not the same people we were in the late 18th Century. That much is obvious. At least, I sure hope that’s obvious.
Right. Because if there’s one thing conservatives respect, it’s the sanctity and finality of the legislative process.
Conservatives should rest assured their ideas will receive the same respect.
Why are you trying to rebut my arguments by pointing to things “conservatives” do?
I’m not King of the Conservatives. I don’t have any particular sway over the actions you’ve listed above – and if you’ll do a search, you’ll see that from the very beginning I was of the opinion that Obamacare was perfectly constitutional.
So what’s the deal?
Might it not be that “neener-neener” is less an argument than a boast? And an increasingly empty boast, at that?
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
For some, coming up with $47 is a bit of a challenge. Do you not realize that?
No, really. What did the election judges and/or the police have to say to you about this.
You are the first person to be the victim of this that I’ve ever “spoken” with.
What were you told when you tried to vote? What were you advised as far as recourse?
Your response?
You’re invoking a principle to defend a conservative cause. I pointed out that conservatives often choose not to follow that principle. So if they don’t follow it, they can’t call on other people to do so.
Well, a lot of these states do issue a voting card. It is mailed to the address where the voter is registered. In the past this card was enough to vote, now they want photo ID and the people who don’t have the required photo IDs are much more likely to be minorities.
Or get the Supreme Court to overturn it.
Despite statements by folks like the Pennsylvania Republican party chairman to the effect that these Voter ID laws will deliver the state to Romney?
Aside from the fact that there is such a clear partisan divide on this issue and the Republicans have admitted that they are trying to suppress the vote.
Yeah a few people are always on the fringes. I’m not seeing the reasonable middle going along with this.
You think that the motives behind all these other voter suppression laws are suspect but the voter ID laws in the same bill are not because you can make a (barely) straight face argument that it might have some legitimate purpose?:dubious:
There were express assumptions in those opinions just as there are in scientific consensus. If those assumptions turn out to be false then the conclusions don’t hold. In the case of evolution and global warming, you have some pretty tough assumptions to undermine. In the case of the recent attack on voter rights, I’m not so sure.
Does this rule affect me in some way, or are you simply choosing this moment in the thread to point out inconsistent action from that group of conservatives?
I have no idea why he said that. Perhaps he believed, without any evidence, that illegal voters in Pennsylvania number in the hundreds of thousands, and he’s a fool.
Perhaps he believed that the measures would stop legitimate Democrats from voting. I don’t know. But it’s not relevant – as I explained above, a law’s purpose can be many different things in the minds of the many people who vote for it. There is no reason it’ singular, true “purpose” is any one of those many things.
I’m not aware of any Republicans admitting that they are approving Voter ID measures to suppress the vote.
I think that if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of certain individual legislators.
You’re the one that invoked the principle. Now it’s nice if you personally follow that principle but I pointed out that conservatives as a group cannot expect liberals as a group to follow a principle when conservatives as a group have shown they won’t follow it.
I doubt liberals would follow that principle even if conservatives had consistently shown the greatest fidelity to it.
But yours is not a new observation – it’s happened before. Conservatives respect and defend states’ rights…until the state in question votes in medical marijuana or assisted suicide. Then the federal government’s wise oversight is ideal, and should be judicially defended.
But that’s not me. I think medical marijuana is an unwise legislative choice, but within a state’s plenary regulatory power. So, too, assisted suicide.
Are you debating “conservatives,” or me?
All I will add is I was 100% in favor of voter ID laws until a clerical error* led to my being disenfranchised this last spring, being presented with a letter (badly photocopied; don’t people have printers???) from the county election commission which not only told me I was ineligible to vote because they had no record of my existence, but that I should keep in mind the serious penalties for trying to vote when not legally eligible to do so, and the serious penalties for being in the United States legally.
It was cleared up - a week after the election. At no time did they tell me I could cast a provisional ballot, and I didn’t exert myself to do such because I was too worried from the sternness of the letter that somehow I might be making things worse by trying to do that.
I’m still in favor of voter ID but clearly it needs to err more on the side of acceptance and in my state at least, it needs to be much more clear about what my options were.
- after making an effort to update them and tell them that I was now legally female and with a different name, and receiving assurances that all files were updated… :rolleyes:
How do you feel about legal non-medical MJ? Treat it like alcohol or tobacco?
Just curious, not trying to threadjack. PM me if you like.
Same thing: an unwise legislative choice, in my view, but one that Congress should not have the power to regulate. It should be entirely within the purview of, say, Colorado to make marijuana legal. If I were a resident of Colorado, I’d work to defeat such a measure. But if it passes, that ought to be the operative law of Colorado.
Makes sense I guess. Would you work towards alcohol prohibition? And tobacco?
Or is it just marijuana you want to forbid people from using?
I feel as though, from a practical matter, both of those cats have long escaped their bags. Tobacco is an especially insidious health risk, but we realized that too late to stem the tide.
Was the letter actually from the commission? Voter suppression orgs sometimes send out low-quality flyers telling people that they can’t vote.
Example 1, 2, 3, 4
Plausible and logical. 